Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills [Lords] (Substituted Bill),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in respect of the following Bill, introduced pursuant to the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, and which the Chairman of Ways and Means had directed to originate in the House of Lords, they have certified that the Standing Orders have been complied with, namely:

Carnegie Hero Fund Trust Bill [Lords] (Substituted Bill).

Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Gloucestershire, Warwickshire, and Worcestershire) Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

Public Offices (Sites) Amendment Bill,

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 10th day of February, That in the case of the following Bill, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Public Offices (Sites) Amendment Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALLOTMENTS, ST. BUDEAUX (RENTS).

Brigadier-General WRIGHT: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the dissatisfaction that has been expressed by those concerned locally at the rent charged by his Department for land let for the purposes of allotments at Tamerton Road, St. Budeaux; and whether in fixing this rent due regard has been had to the lower rents which are charged for similar land by his Department in the same district?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): I have already had correspondence with the hon. and gallant Member on this matter and, as I have explained to him, the difference in the rental value of the various lands in the district is due to the nature of the soil, the position, and the conditions of tenure. I am advised that a fair rental only is charged for these allotments.

Brigadier-General WRIGHT: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the advice given by his Department's representative on the spot, that there is a note-worthy difference in value between these two sets of allotments, is not correct?

Mr. SHAW: No, I am not aware of that kind of advice from my representative on the spot. On the contrary, my advice is that a reasonable rent is charged for all land, and the rent is based on that fact.

Brigadier-General WRIGHT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that to make these difficulties for allotment-holders and smallholders is scarcely consistent with the policy of the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill?

Mr. SHAW: I have no desire to create difficulties for allotment-holders, but, unless I have definite proof that the rents charged are unfair and are not fixed in an equitable way, I must decline to take any action.

Brigadier-General WRIGHT: Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries on this point, of which I have close and intimate knowledge?

Mr. SHAW: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me one typical case, it will help. I am willing to help him in every possible way if he feels that justice is not being done.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

HOLYROOD PALACE (MILITARY GUARD).

Sir PATRICK FORD: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for War why the sentries have been withdrawn from the Royal Palace of Holyrood House; and, in view of the fact that, with the exception of a brief period there has been a military guard there ever since the building has been a royal residence, can he give any assurance that immediate steps will be taken to restore this ancient privilege and right?

Mr. SHAW: I am inquiring into this question personally, but am not in a position to announce a decision at the moment. Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to put his question down again a little later.

Mr. MATHERS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is strong resentment in Edinburgh against what appears to be a lowering of the status of this ancient Royal residence?

CLOTHING.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for War the average cost per head of clothing the personnel of the Army in 1913–14 and 1930–31, respectively?

Mr. SHAW: Having regard to such disturbing factors as the differences in the uniform of various ranks and branches, the preparation of an accurate comparison in the form suggested would involve undue labour. But in the typical case of a private of the infantry of the line, other than a recruit, the figures are, for 1913 £7 12s. and for 1930 £9 3s. 4d. These figures were published in the Parliamentary Estimates for the years in question on pages 65 and 143, respectively, where the hon. Member will find much additional information. But he will, no doubt, bear in mind that the authorised scales of clothing have been considerably altered since 1913, notably by the withdrawal of full dress.

VICTUALLING.

Mr. L. SMITH: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for War the average cost per head of victualling the personnel of the Army in 1913–14 and 1930–31, respectively; whether any substantial changes have taken place with regard to the amount and quality of the food supplied; and whether the cost of victualling is found to coincide in general with the average increase in the cost of food as indicated by the Ministry of Labour food-price index figures?

Mr. SHAW: The approximate daily figures are 11½d. for 1930, and 7¾. for 1913. The bread and meat supplied in kind through public sources are as in 1913, but both figures include also a cash element to enable the regimental authorities to purchase for the troops other articles of diet. This cash element has been approximately doubled since 1913, and this increase, after allowing for increase in market prices, undoubtedly and designedly gives the troops more purchasing power. In these circumstances, no real comparison with the Ministry of Labour figures is to be expected.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: Was not British meat supplied in 1913 instead of chilled meat?

Mr. SHAW: I would like notice of that question.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS' YEAR BOOK (FOREIGN ARMIES).

Major GLYN: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the general staff of the Army no longer obtains information from military attachés, in foreign countries regarding the strength, equipment, etc., of foreign armies, but depend upon the League of Nations' armaments year book for figures on which to make calculations of comparative strengths, he will say whether the Secretary of State and the Army Council accept full responsibility for all military information contained in that publication?

Mr. SHAW: The League of Nations' armaments year book is compiled by the Secretariat of the League from official or semi-official publications, a list of which is given at the end of the book. The Army Council can obviously accept
no responsibility for the information published, though they have no reason to doubt its substantial accuracy.

Major GLYN: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether there is any precedent for Ministers referring hon. Members to books for which they accept no responsibility?

Mr. SHAW: I do not know whether there is any precedent or not. Frankly, I do not care, provided my answers helps the hon. and gallant Gentleman to get the information that he desires.

Major GLYN: I am not satisfied that everything contained in the League of Nations Year Book—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"] Does the right hon. Gentleman think that I can be satisfied with everything that appears in the League of Nations Year Book?

ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.

Major GLYN: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, as it is necessary to employ 57 temporary and retired officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps and there is a deficiency of 124 of the authorised establishment, he will consult with the Board of Admiralty and the Air Ministry in order to endeavour to discover the cause of this shortage of medical officers under the present regulations?

Mr. SHAW: I have this matter under my personal consideration and am in close touch with my colleagues in regard to it.

Major GLYN: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the condition is satisfactory as regards medical officers?

Mr. SHAW: No, I am not satisfied that the condition is satisfactory, but unfortunately the difficulties in the way are not easy to surmount.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Is not this the same question as has been on the tapis for 12 years, and is it not, therefore, necessary to make urgent efforts to deal with the matter? Will not some urgent action be taken?

Mr. SHAW: There is one word that would solve the whole matter—money; but unfortunately by the free provision of money one might do more harm than
good with other officers of the Forces who are not on the medical side.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: That is to say, there is a total impasse so far as the Secretary of State is concerned?

ORDNANCE CORPS, CATTERICK.

Mr. SHEPHERD: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that ex-Service civilian employés of the Ordnance Corps, Catterick, are discharged and their places taken by discharged or about to be discharged soldiers; and whether he will explain the reasons for this procedure?

Mr. SHAW: I shall be glad if my hon. Friend will send me details of any cases he has in mind in order that I may inquire into them.

OFFICERS' PAY.

Major Sir HERBERT CAYZER: 9.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can give the estimated saving to be effected by the reduction of pay, half-pay, and retired pay of Army officers by 1 per cent. as from 1st July, 1931, to 30th June, 1933?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (W. Sanders): The estimated saving during the two years referred to is, on present numbers, approximately £128,000.

RUSSIA (SOVIET DEFENCE LEAGUE).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any information as to the present numbers of the registered members of the Osoaviakhin or Soviet defence league, formed in 1927, with a view to encouraging citizens of the Soviet republics to prepare for war; and what is the total number of women who have been trained for war service under the auspices of this league?

Mr. SHAW: According to the Soviet Press of 1st July, 1930, the number of members of this league was 5,100,000 on that date. The hon. Member will also find information on this subject in the League of Nations Armaments Year Book. I have no information as regards the last part of the question.

Sir W. DAVISON: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it desirable that we should have a military attaché in Russia who would give much more precise information on these important points?

Mr. SHAW: That is a matter, perhaps, for discussion. I do not think it arises out of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

HOUSING.

Miss LEE: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what restrictions, if any, were imposed by his Department upon the rentals that may be charged for Weir steel houses?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Johnston): The Department of Health for Scotland have imposed no restrictions on rentals chargeable for Weir steel houses erected by local authorities. The fixing of these rentals is a matter for the local authorities concerned who must have regard to any relative requirement in the Act under which the houses were built. As regards the Weir steel houses built by the Second Scottish National Housing Company (Housing Trust) Limited, the rents fall to be fixed in accordance with the rents charged for houses with similar accommodation in the district.

Miss LEE: If it can be brought to the Government's notice that there are such houses for which rents higher than those that are being charged in the district, can we have no help, and cannot we have the rents reduced?

Mr. JOHNSTON: If higher charges are being made for Weir steel houses than are being made for houses of similar accommodation.

Mr. TRAIN: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has in view the co-ordination of the various Housing Acts from 1919; and if he will consider bringing all the rents into line so that comparable houses may have comparable rents?

Mr. JOHNSTON: The various Housing Acts passed prior to 1925 were consolidated in the Housing (Scotland) Act of that year. The question whether a further consolidation should take place con-
sequent on the passing of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930, will be duly considered. The problems and difficulties arising out of the charging of varying rentals for similar types of houses are continually being brought to my right hon. Friend's notice but he has no statutory power to require uniform rentals.

Mr. TRAIN: Will the hon. Gentleman not seek statutory powers to deal with this question?

Mr. JOHNSTON: It must be obvious to the hon. Member that the 1930 Act has had a very limited opportunity of being operated yet by the local authorities in Scotland.

Mr. TRAIN: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the amount of arrears in rent on council houses in Glasgow, namely, £27,200, and in view of the extent to which these arrears fall upon the Exchequer, he intends to take any steps for the recovery of these arrears?

Mr. JOHNSTON: As I informed the hon. Member on the 10th instant, the amount referred to includes recoverable arrears, and I have no reason to believe that the corporation are not doing everything possible to secure the payment of outstanding rents. I may add that the arrears written off as irrecoverable for the year 1929–30 were only 1 per cent. of the total rental.

Mr. TRAIN: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that it is the duty of the Secretary of State for Scotland, in the interests of the Exchequer, to do something to recover these arrears, apart from the local authorities?

Miss LEE: Arising out of the original reply, does the hon. Gentleman not think that these arrears are an indication that the general rental level is higher than the people can pay, and therefore would not his most effective action be to give assistance in the reduction of the general rents?

Mr. JOHNSTON: The figures show that, as a matter of fact, there has only been 1 per cent. of arrears written off as irrecoverable.

Miss LEE: In Scotland?

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am dealing with the question on the Paper, and I am
perfectly certain that that is, at least, as low a percentage as private owners are writing off.

Mr. TRAIN: May I have an answer to my question?

Mr. SPEAKER: We are taking too long over this question.

ILLEGAL TRAWLING.

Mr. MACPHERSON: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has given further consideration to the prevalence of illegal trawling in the Minch and sea lochs on the West Coast of Scotland; and what steps he proposes to take to safeguard the livelihood of the fishing community around those localities?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): I would refer the right hon. Member to my reply of the 27th January, in which I stated that this amongst other areas has received, and will continue to receive, as close attention as the resources of the Fishery Board permit.

Mr. MACPHERSON: In view of the seriousness of the situation, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Adjournment to-night.

PIER, NIGG.

Mr. MACPHERSON: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that it is proposed to demolish the pier at Nigg, in the Cromarty Firth; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to preserve a structure which is in good condition and which is of great value to the community?

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I have no information as to any proposal to demolish the pier. I understand, however, that the pier is now used mainly in connection with the ferry to Cromarty, that the revenue is too small to meet the cost of upkeep, and that the county council are not prepared to take over the pier.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman read the answers given by his colleagues? One colleague gave an answer last week. Is it in the power of a county council to take over from a private owner a pier that is of great use?

AGRICULTURAL CREDITS.

Mr. MACPHERSON: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now in a position to say what arrangements have been made to put into force the provisions of the Agricultural Credits (Scotland) Act, 1929?

Mr. W. ADAMSON: Discussions are still proceeding with the four Scottish banks regarding the scheme which is under their consideration, and I am hopeful that the outcome will be favourable.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that he has given this answer to the House of Commons on many occasions; and will he promise the House of Commons to make a definite statement within a short time?

Mr. ADAMSON: I still hope to be able to give a definite statement before very long, but the right hon. Gentleman forgets that it has been the banks who have delayed this matter.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why it should be held up by the banks, while the authorities in England have not been held up by the banks; and is he aware that the English farmers have had the advantage of their Act for over a year and the Scottish farmers have not?

Mr. ADAMSON: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the English banks agreed to set up the agricultural credits scheme, whereas the Scottish banks did not agree.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman still negotiating with these banks, and is there not another way of getting the money?

Mr. ADAMSON: I have already told the right hon. Gentleman that I am negotiating with the banks.

CLINIC, KIRKINTILLOCH.

Mr. BROOKE: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the reasons that are holding up the building of the new clinic at Kirkintilloch; and whether, in view of the number of children awaiting treatment as a result of the school medical officers' reports, he can take any steps to urge an early commencement of the operations?

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am informed that difficulty has been experienced in arriving at the most suitable arrangement of the site to provide for the health services of the area but that the plans for the clinic have now been finally adjusted and it is hoped that building operations will be commenced at an early date. I understand that, pending completion of the new clinic, the medical officer of health is arranging additional sessions at the present clinic with a view to providing for the children who require treatment.

DRAINAGE SCHEME, KELVIN VALLEY.

Mr. BROOKE: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now in a position to say whether he has reached agreement amongst the interests affected by his proposals for the better drainage of the Kelvin Valley; and if he can say when the scheme will be commenced?

Mr. JOHNSTON: The Department of Agriculture have a draft scheme in preparation which will very shortly be advertised. I am informed that negotiations are proceeding.

Mr. BROOKE: Is there any possibility of this scheme being started this year, and can the hon. Gentleman give any indication as to the number of men likely to be employed?

Mr. JOHNSTON: I should not care to venture upon a definite statement of that kind. All I can say is that the Department is endeavouring by every means in its power to ensure that the scheme will be operated during the summer months—indeed, it is in those months alone that such a scheme could be operated—and the number of men employed will depend upon the precise form of the scheme.

CATTLE INDUSTRY (SCRUB BULLS).

Mr. BROOKE: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he proposes to introduce legislation this Session to deal with the scrub bull, in order to put our cattle industry in a better position in view of the anti-scrub bull legislation in some competing countries?

Major COLFOX: On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to ask a question in the House without rising from his seat?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is not the general custom.

Mr. BROOKE: May I draw attention, Sir, to the fact that I rose in asking both my questions?

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the provisions of the Improvement of Live Stock (Licensing of Bulls) Bill which has now passed the Committee stage in another place. This Bill is applicable to Scotland.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: As Ireland has now succeeded in eliminating the scrub bull, cannot Scotland do the same thing?

Mr. ADAMSON: That is exactly what we are proposing to do.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government propose to give facilities for this Bill?

Mr. ADAMSON: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman, of course the Government will do what they can to pass the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

EXPORT TRADE (SCANDINAVIA).

Mr. WOMERSLEY: 19.
asked the Secretary for Mines the amount of coal thus far sold to Scandinavia as a direct result of the recent visit of the British commercial delegation to Scandinavia?

Mr. ALBERY: 21.
asked the Secretary for Mines what improvement, if any, in our export trade to that country has resulted from the British coal delegation to Scandinavia?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): I will answer these questions together by referring the hon. Members to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) on 16th December last.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us why there has been no success attending this mission? Was it the question of the price of British coal which caused the lack of orders?

Mr. SHINWELL: The hon. Member is quite mistaken in assuming that there has been no success. In point of fact, I am meeting the coalowners and exporters tomorrow preparatory to meeting the railway companies, in connection with one aspect of the problem, and other aspects of the problem have been under consideration with the exporters and coal-owners and others.

Mr. ALBERY: Is it not a fact that the export of British coal to Scandinavia has been seriously interfered with owing to the fact that we are now taking from Russia much timber, which we originally took from Scandinavia?

QUOTA SYSTEM.

Major COLVILLE: 20.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he will make inquiries for the purpose of ascertaining how many miners in Scotland have been suspended from employment owing to the operation of the quota under the Goal Mines Act?

Mr. SHINWELL: I cannot accept the suggestion that any reduction in the number of persons employed in Scotland is due to the quota system. Numbers employed in all districts fluctuate from time to time according, among other things, to the state of trade. The Scottish District Scheme became operative on 1st January, 1931. During the week in which 1st January fell and subsequent weeks the number of persons employed has been:


Week ended. 1931
Numbers employed.


3rd January
93,285


10th January
91,654


17th January
91,754


24th January
92,050


31st January
92,263


It will be seen that although there has been a reduction of 1,000 in persons employed during January there has been a progressive increase in employment during the month. Judging by the recent course of trade, the district allocation of coal output to Scotland for the current quarter is not less than the amount which the district would sell if no regulation of output existed, and therefore the operation of the quota cannot be held responsible for any reduction in employment.

Major COLVILLE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the exporting districts of Scotland many pits have had to reduce output when they actually had orders which they could have fulfilled?

Mr. SHINWELL: The reply to the hon. and gallant Member is that if any coal-owner feels aggrieved because of any reduction in the quota, he has the right of appeal to the executive board and to arbitration. So far, we have had no complaints from any of these coalowners.

Mr. TINKER: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to how many were suspended before the quota came into operation?

Mr. SHINWELL: That is another question.

Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: 28.
asked the Secretary for Mines if, in view of the fact that it is now cheaper for large consumers in one district of Northumberland to import Polish coal rather than purchase British coal, he will take steps to change the quota system?

Mr. SHINWELL: I am unable to accept the hon. and gallant Member's statement of fact in the first part of the question; the second part does not, therefore, arise.

Colonel BROWN: Has the hon. Gentleman seen this fact confirmed by an ex-chief inspector of mines in the public Press?

Mr. SHINWELL: There are many statements in the public Press which are not warranted by the facts.

Captain TODD: Would the Minister be prepared to hear a statement from the displaced miners?

Mr. SHINWELL: If the miners or the organisation representing the miners care to make representations to the Mines Department, we shall be very glad to hear them.

Major COLVILLE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the dissatisfaction that exists among the miners owing to the quota system?

Mr. SHINWELL: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is mistaken. We have heard of no dissatisfaction.

Mr. LEE: Will the hon. Gentleman snake inquiries as to who has ordered this coal, so that we may know if they are supporters of Lord Beaverbrook?

Mr. SHINWELL: In point of fact, no Polish coal is coming into this country.

EXPLOSIONS.

Mr. TINKER: 22.
asked the Secretary for Mines if the number of explosions in coal mines, and loss of life through them, was greater or less in 1930 than in the years 1927, 1928 and 1929?

Mr. SHINWELL: Details of the number of separate explosions having fatal consequences and of the loss of life therein were given in the answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. D. R. Grenfell) on the 2nd of this month.

Mr. TINKER: Was there an increase or a decrease in the last year compared with previous years?

Mr. SHINWELL: The hon. Gentleman bad better examine the figures, as they fluctuate so.

STATISTICS.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: 23.
asked the Secretary for Mines the average weekly wage of the workers in the coal-mining industry of Great Britain in 1920 and also in 1930, giving separate figures for Lancashire and Cheshire?

Mr. SHINWELL: The average weekly cash earnings of all workers employed in the coal mines in Great Britain during the nine months ended September, 1920, was £4 6s. 11d., and during the 11 months ended November, 1930, £2 4s. 4d. The corresponding figures for Lancashire and Cheshire were £4 1s. 0d. and £2 1s. 6d. respectively.

Mr. MACDONALD: 24.
asked the Secretary for Mines the weekly average number of days worked in the coal-mining industry of Great Britain in 1920 and 1930, respectively, giving separate figures for Lancashire and Cheshire?

Mr. SHINWELL: The average weekly number of days worked in the coal-mining industry of Great Britain, excluding periods affected by holidays and disputes, was 5.73 in 1920 and 4.85 in 1930. The corresponding figures for Lancashire and Cheshire were 5.91 and 4.31, respectively.

Mr. MACDONALD: 25.
asked the Secretary for Mines the output per man per shift worked in the coal-mining industry of Great Britain in 1920 and also in 1930, giving separate figures for Lancashire and Cheshire?

Mr. SHINWELL: The output per man-shift worked in the coal-mining industry of Great Britain during the nine months ended September, 1920, was 14.70 cwts., and during the 11 months ended November, 1930, 21.61 cwts. The corresponding figures for Lancashire and Cheshire were 12.69 cwts. and 17.29 cwts., respectively.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Would it be possible to say how much of that increase is due to machinery being introduced?

Mr. SHINWELL: There has been no considerable extension of machinery for mining operations in Lancashire and Cheshire, but there has been some.

Mr. LEE: Does the average mean for every man employed, including managers?

Mr. SHINWELL: We take the average of those employed in the production of coal.

CLOSED PITS.

Mr. LEE: 26.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many collieries were closed down between December, 1924, and June, 1929; and how many have been closed since the quota arrangements of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, became operative?

Mr. SHINWELL: Between December, 1924 and June, 1929, 1,148 pits in Great Britain, normally employing 93,600 wage-earners, have closed and not reopened. During the period 1st January, 1931 to date 71 pits employing 9,400 wage-earners were closed. It is too early to say which, if any, of these pits will remain permanently closed. That there has not been any material change in the rate of closing of pits since the quota system came into operation is seen from the fact that in the nine months ended 31st October, 1930, 316 pits employing 48,000 persons were closed and not re-opened.

EMPLOYMENT.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 27.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of persons representing the normal capacity
for employment of the coal-mining industry; and by how many the number of persons nominally registered as employable in the industry exceeds this figure?

Mr. SHINWELL: The normal capacity for employment in the coal mining industry is a matter of opinion, but if the hon. Member will let me have any particular dates, I will endeavour to give him the actual numbers employed at those dates and the number of persons then registered as employable in the industry.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Are the Department or the Government taking any steps to absorb the redundant labour in the mines; and how do they intend that this labour should be disposed of?

Mr. SHINWELL: If the hon. Member will put down a question, I will endeavour to give the best answer possible.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Will the hon. Gentleman admit that there is a considerable redundancy—

HON. MEMBERS: Order, Order!

SAFETY (CONFERENCES).

Mr. LEES: 29.
asked the Secretary of Mines whether he proposes to hold further conferences in the coalfields in connection with the question of safety in mines?

Mr. SHINWELL: Yes, Sir. Two safety conferences have already been held—one at Newcastle at the end of November last, and one at Glasgow last Saturday. The attendances were large and representative of all interests; and the addresses by experts on questions of safety were intently followed and usefully discussed. I intend, therefore, to organize similar conferences in other large coal-fields as soon as I can.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (DOMINIONS).

Mr. DAY: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs in which of the Dominions legislation has been passed on similar lines to that of the Cinematograph Films Act of 1927?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): So far as I am aware, no such
legislation has been passed elsewhere in the Dominions than in New Zealand and in Victoria.

Mr. DAY: Has any correspondence taken place with the Dominions urging them to pass similar legislation, according to their promise?

Mr. THOMAS: I will make inquiries.

SOUTH AFRICA (NON-EUROPEANS).

Mr. MANDER: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what reply he has made to the communication sent to him from South Africa with reference to a request to receive a deputation of non-Europeans concerning their grievances in that country?

Mr. THOMAS: I have not received any such communication or request.

IRISH LIGHTHOUSE SERVICE.

Mr. KELLY: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any satisfactory agreement has been arrived at for the transfer of the Irish lighthouse service from the British Government to the Irish Free State?

Mr. THOMAS: Negotiations have been proceeding for some time, but the arrangements to be made are still under discussion.

Mr. KELLY: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking care that the wages, conditions, and pensions of the men in the lighthouse service are being protected?

Mr. THOMAS: I have no knowledge that there is any danger, but I will certainly make inquiries.

CANADA (GOVERNOR-GENERAL).

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has any information as to when the new Governor-General of Canada is likely to take up his appointment?

Mr. THOMAS: No, Sir. So far as I am aware, no announcement has yet been made by His Majesty's Government in Canada.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

RUSSIA.

Mr. SMITHERS: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has received any report about the negotiations between the Prime Minister of Canada and the American Government at Washington, with a view to securing co-operative action between Canada and the United States of America in respect of Russian dumping in those countries?

Mr. THOMAS: No, Sir.

Sir H. CAYZER: 38.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the total value of imports into this country from Russia during January, and of our exports to that country during the same period?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): The desired particulars are not readily available, but if the hon. and gallant Member will repeat his question on the 26th February, I hope it will then be possible to give him the figures he requires.

TIMBER IMPORTS.

Sir H. CAYZER: 39.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity and value of soft wood, hewed and sawn, respectively, imported from Russia during January?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: As stated in the January issue of the "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom," the total imports into the United Kingdom of hewn soft wood registered during January, 1931, as consigned from the Soviet Union, amounted to 409 loads, of a declared value of £1,284, and the imports of sawn soft wood to 37,468 loads, valued at £171,282.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 42.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state, in view of the prohibition by America of imported lumber and pulp wood from four districts in Russia unless shippers can prove that the imported materials have not been produced by convict labour, whether he proposes to take action on similar lines?

Mr. SMITH: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave
yesterday to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers).

Sir K. WOOD: Will the hon. Member say what action the Board of Trade propose to take?

Mr. SMITH: No; my right hon. Friend gave a very specific answer to this question some few days ago, and it is not possible to add anything to it.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 44.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the annual value of mahogany and other hard timber, if any, imported into Great Britain during the last 12 months from British, French, and Dutch Guiana, respectively?

Mr. SMITH: The declared value of the total imports of hard wood into the United Kingdom registered as consigned from British Guiana during the year 1930 was £11,268. These imports included no mahogany, but probably consisted in part of a hard wood known as greenheart. No imports of hard wood were registered during this period as consigned from. French or Dutch Guiana.

Mr. REMER: Does that answer include imports of timber from these countries via the United States of America?

Mr. SMITH: I should like to have notice of that question.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: Has the hon. Member any knowledge of the conditions under which this timber is procured?

Mr. SMITH: No; I should require notice of that question.

Mr. POTTS: 40.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give a summary statement showing the quantity of timber imported into the United Kingdom for mining purposes, aggregate loads and sterling value each separately specified, from Russia, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Sweden, Norway, Poland (including Dantzig), Germany, France, Portugal, Spain, the Irish Free State, and other countries for the years 1913, 1928, 1929, and 1930, respectively, specifying any case in which figures relate to the British Isles?

Mr. SMITH: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The following table shows the total quantities and declared values of Pitprops or Pitwood imported into the United Kingdom during the years 1913 and 1928 to 1930, distinguishing the imports registered as consigned from the countries specified.


Countries whence consigned.
1913.
1928.
1929.
1930.


Quantities.



Loads.
Loads.
Loads.
Loads.


Russia (a)
…
…
1,538,714
304,382
414,732
727,831


Finland
…
…
(b)
447,548
422,761
362 511


Estonia
…
…
(b)
68,323
67,851
69,094


Latvia
…
…
(b)
186,865
166,023
148,512


Sweden
…
…
359,988
334,925
349,441
277,781


Norway
…
…
114,777
77,154
56,912
56,641


Poland (including Dantzig)
…
…
(c)
31,905
16,667
27,754


Germany
…
…
28,926
22,122
18,175
25,184


France
…
…
984,331
1,040,043
1,052,608
949,866


Portugal
…
…
315,538
69,350
107,242
114,723


Spain
…
…
103,123
4,118
138
—


Irish Free State
…
…
—
9,799
12,441
15,467


Other Countries
…
…
5,931
352
7,526
6,534


Total Imports
…
…
3,451,328
2,596,886
2,692,517
2,781,898



Declared Values.



£
£
£
£


Russia (a)
…
…
2,415,086
657,932
987,511
1,717,312


Finland
…
…
(b)
1,052,933
994,944
824,295


Estonia
…
…
(b)
143,817
137,538
138,229


Latvia
…
…
(b)
428,655
310,219
344,095


Sweden
…
…
558,095
826,477
862,248
659,952


Norway
…
…
200,932
204,571
150,962
143,321


Poland (including Dantzig)
…
…
(c)
86,997
47,918
66,866


Germany
…
…
53,550
50,932
44,621
58,266


France
…
…
839,065
1,216,858
1,251,461
1,065,085


Portugal
…
…
278,154
80,501
128,206
127,771


Spain
…
…
90,972
6,029
164
—


Irish Free State
…
…
—
22,535
26,905
35,366


Other Countries
…
…
9,212
843
26,401
12,900


Total Imports
…
…
4,445,066
4,779,080
5,029,098
5,193,458


(a) The figures for 1913 relate to the former Russian Empire and for 1928 to 1930 to the soviet Union.


(b) Not separately recorded in 1913; included with Russia.


(c) Included with Russia, Germany and Austria-Hungary, in 1913.


NOTE.—The above figures relate to the imports into Great Britain and Ireland in 1913, and into Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1928 to 1930.

FOREIGN TARIFFS.

Mr. HANNON: 78.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can make any statement on the recent proposals made by His Majesty's Government to certain foreign countries for a reduction of import duties on various categories of goods?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: These proposals embrace, in the case of each country, the articles of principal interest to British trade, and at the present stage must be regarded as confidential. I may, however, state that the general line followed has been to ask for a consolidation of existing duties where they are already low,
and in most cases where they are substantial for a reduction of 25 per cent. in the rates. Proposals on these lines have now been sent to the Governments of Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Switzerland.

Mr. HANNON: Can the hon. Gentleman indicate to the House whether any favourable replies on this question have been received from any of these countries?

Mr. SMITH: I think it is too early to give that information.

The following STATEMENT shows the quantity of coal imported into the undermentioned countries during each of the years 1927 to 1930, distinguisbing the principal sources of supply, so far as the information is available from the trade returns of the respective countries.


—
1927.
1928.
1929.
1930.



1,000 tons.
1,000 tons.
1,000 tons.
1,000 tons.


Canada:







Imports for Consumption
…
16,685
15,362
16,254
15,686(a)


Of which from:







United States
…
15,866
14,746
15,396
14,442(a)


United Kingdom
…
810
610
753
978(a)


Finland:







Total Imports
…
891
924
958
(b)


Of which from:






Great Britain and Ireland
…
567
379
467


Poland and Dantzig
…
200
445
383


Germany
…
99
92
94


Norway:







Total Imports
…
2,206
2,089
2,397
2,239


Of which from:







United Kingdom
…
1,606
1,113
1,472
(b)


Poland and Dantzig
…
215
687
673


Spitzbergen
…
262
251
204


Sweden:







Imports for Consumption
…
4,790
4,004
4,915
4,694


Of which from:







United Kingdom
…
2,207
1,523
2,326
(b)


Poland and Dantzig
…
1,248
1,416
1,637


Germany
…
1,317
1,058
927


(a) January to November, 1930.
(b) Not yet available.

MANUFACTURED GOODS.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: 80.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the volume of exports of manufactures from Great Britain and the United States, respectively, in 1930, as expressed as percentages of the volume in 1929?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: Eliminating the effect of price changes, the volume of the domestic exports from the United Kingdom in 1930 of goods classed in the trade returns as "wholly or mainly manufactured" was 80.1 per cent. of that in

COAL (STATISTICS).

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: 79.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what were the imports of coal in each of the years 1927, 1928, 1929, and 1930 into Canada, Finland, Norway, and Sweden, respectively, distinguishing in each case the principal countries of origin?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: As the answer involves a tabular statement, I will, with the permission of the right hon. Gentleman, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

1929. Similar information in respect of the exports of manufactures from the United States is not available.

Mr. HANNON: 81.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the value and quantities of safeguarded and non-safeguarded manufactured goods imported into this country and retained for domestic consumption, of similar goods of British produce and manufacture exported, and of foreign goods re-exported for the years 1929 and 1930, in supplement to the question answered in the House of Commons on 17th April, 1930?

Mr. SMITH: The particulars for 1929 were given in the answer referred to by the hon. Member. Similar particulars for 1930 are being compiled, and will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible.

BOARD OF TRADE ADVISORY COUNCIL.

Major NATHAN: 82.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the composition and what are the functions of the Board of Trade Advisory Committee?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: The Board of Trade Advisory Council consists of representatives of industry and commerce together with Dominion and other official representatives, and its main function is to keep the Board of Trade informed month by month of the position and prospects of trade and industry. I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a list of the present members.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: Is it not the fact that one member of the committee has resigned recently; and was his resignation due to the unsatisfactory policy of the Government?

Mr. SMITH: I do not think so.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is it true that the Archbishop of Canterbury attended a meeting?

CUNARD INSURANCE (AGREEMENT) ACT.

Mr. ALBERY: 36.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now state what proportion of the Cunard insurance construction risk has been placed in the insurance market?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: No, Sir. I understand that steps are now being taken by the builders to place the construction risk insurance on the market, but the result is not yet known.

Mr. ALBERY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it has always been the custom to place construction risks before the keel is laid down, and why is it that in the present case, this risk has not been covered weeks after the keel has been laid down?

Mr. SMITH: I have no knowledge of what has happened in previous cases; I have only information in regard to this one.

Mr. ALBERY: Is it not part of the hon. Gentleman's duty—

HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

CONSUMERS' COUNCIL BILL.

Sir K. WOOD: 37.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he proposes to ask the House to consider further the Consumers' Council Bill?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: It is proposed to proceed with the Consumers' Council Bill as soon as the state of business permits.

Sir K. WOOD: Does the Board of Trade still regard this Bill as urgent?

Mr. SMITH: It is an important Measure.

Sir K. WOOD: I said urgent.

Mr. BECKETT: Is not this Bill of much more importance to the country than the electoral reform Bill?

BRITISH MERCHANT SHIPS (OIL FUEL).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 43.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of the ships of the Royal Merchant Navy are now oil-burning?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: According to Lloyd's Register book, which contains particulars relating to vessels of 100 tons gross and upwards, there were on the register about the middle of last year 9,172 steam vessels of 20,648,000 tons gross registered at ports in the British Empire. 12 per cent. of the number and 30 per cent. of the gross tonnage were steam vessels fitted for burning oil fuel.

GRAND OPERA (GOVERNMENT GRANT).

Sir K. WOOD: 45.
asked the Prime Minister when he proposes to ask the House to consider the proposed Government grant to grand opera?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I am not yet in a position to say. As has already been explained by my hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, certain questions are under dis-
cussion with the British Broadcasting Corporation, the settlement of which will probably involve a new agreement between the Post Office and the Corporation and it is proposed that this new agreement should include provision in respect of the opera grant. The agreement will of course only provide for payment of the proposed grant in the event of supply being voted by Parliament for that purpose.

Sir K. WOOD: May I take it that the Government are pressing on with this as quickly as they possibly can?

Mr. WOMERSLEY: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will obtain the funds for the national opera subsidy by means of a Vote brought before the House of Commons or by other means, such as the variation of the contribution or deduction which govern the payments of the British Broadcasting Corporation into the national Exchequer?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): I think that the hon. Member has misapprehended the position. The revenue from wireless receiving licences is collected by the Post Office and paid into the Exchequer gross. The share of the British Broadcasting Corporation in the proceeds of the licences is voted each year by Parliament under Subhead P of the Post Office Vote and the amount so voted is determined by the agreement set out in Command Paper 2756 of 1926. The grant in respect of national opera will require therefore both the approval of the House to an increase in the Vote and the amendment of the agreement referred to.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think, in view of the very serious financial position—

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Mander!

ARBITRATION, CONCILIATION AND JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has now found it possible to arrange to take the Motion for accession to the General Act of Arbitration, Conciliation and Judicial Settlement at an early date?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am aware of the sympathetic interest shown by the hon. Member and a large body of opinion in this House in the matter. It is only a question of finding an appropriate time.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate, in view of the great importance of this matter, that he will be able to find time before Easter?

The PRIME MINISTER: I could not commit myself to promise that, but it will be at the very earliest time.

FIGHTING SERVICES (EXPENDITURE).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Committee of Inquiry into Government Expenditure will examine into the expenditure on the fighting services; whether it will have the assistance of expert and technical advice; and whether the proposal to combine the War Office, Admiralty, and Air Ministry into one Ministry of Defence will be examined?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave yesterday in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. D. G. Somerville).

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question, which was not dealt with in that answer?

The PRIME MINISTER: The last part of the question would obviously depend upon the terms of reference, and that is one of the things I referred to in the answer I gave yesterday.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I am sorry to press my right hon. Friend, but is he aware that this is very largely a question of policy, and I want to know whether the Committee will be bound in any way by policy?

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is a proposal for the amalgamation of these three Ministries?

The PRIME MINISTER: Oh, that proposal has been floating about for years.

AUSTRALIA (WAR DEBT).

Mr. MANDER: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what negotiations are now taking place with the Australian Government regarding the Australian War Debt, and the present position?

Mr. MATTERS: 61.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals have reached him from the Commonwealth Government of Australia relative to negotiations for the revision of terms and conditions affecting the Australian War Debt to Great Britain?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: No communication on the subject has reached me.

Mr. MANDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman point out to the Australian Government, if the question arises, that we are in no position in this country to make any concession?

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that all these questions are most mischievous?

Mr. WISE: 65.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state for the financial year 1931–32 what are expected to be the receipts of Australia on account of reparations; and what will be the payments in respect of Australia's War Debt to the United Kingdom?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Australia should receive £826,000 on account of reparation in the financial year 1931–32: the sum due in respect of Australia's War Debt to the United Kingdom during the same financial year is £5,548,809.

Mr. WISE: In view of the fact that every pound that Australia pays of the War Debt is one pound less for purchases in this country, would it not be worth while to reconsider the basis of these payments bearing in mind the state of unemployment in this country?

Mr. SPEAKER: All these matters are debatable.

GOLD DELEGATION REPORT.

Mr. MANDER: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has considered the passage in the second interim report of the Gold Delegation of the Financial Committee of the League of Nations in which it is stated that by no policy can a distribution of gold appropriate to
real needs be assured when conditions are likely to be upset by sudden and violent changes in economic policy; and does he propose to take any action in the matter?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: As regards the general question of the action to be taken on the Gold Delegation's report, I would refer to the reply given to the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Morley) on the 29th January.

Mr. MANDER: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer do his utmost to resist the return to office in this country of a party likely to bring about sudden and violent changes in policy?

GERMANY (LOAN).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the £6,000,000 short-term international loan or credit to be made to Germany, what is the object of this loan; and whether His Majesty's Government is participating and, if so, to what amount?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I have no information on the subject.

GREAT BRITAIN AND AMERICA (EXCHANGE ACCOUNT).

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in addition to the sum of £26,000,000 left over as a result of wartime financial operations and included under miscellaneous revenue, there is any balance of the account in New York which was used for pegging the dollar exchange; what is that balance; and is it available for budget purposes?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: If the hon. and gallant Member has in mind the Exchange Account I would refer him to paragraph 66 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on the Civil Appropriations Accounts for 1929 and to the reply which I gave to the late Sir Laming Worthington-Evans on the 5th February.

Mr. SMITHERS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, in answer to the last part of the question, whether that balance is available for Budget purposes?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Of course, the only reply I can give to that question is that I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.

Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is this £26,000,000 a cash reserve?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean held in bullion?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No, in liquid securities.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Yes, in liquid securities.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask how it was that this sum escaped the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor?

GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE (WAR LOANS AND PAYMENTS).

Major BEAUMONT THOMAS: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total value of orders placed by the French Government with British industry and commerce during the late War, and in what manner these commitments were paid for?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I have no information as to the total value of orders placed by the French Government with British industry and commerce during the War, but the amount borrowed in London during the War by the French Government was about £450,000,000 from the British Government and about £142,000,000 from the market.

Major THOMAS: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the total amount paid to France in respect of all services rendered to the British in connection with the late War up to the time of the withdrawal of our troops from Germany, including road and building materials purchased for use in France, but excluding the French railways' claim settled in April, 1925; and when and at what exchange rates these claims were paid?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: As the answer is long and contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

According to an estimate made in 1922, the total amount paid to the French
Government in respect of services rendered to the British Government in connection with the War up to March, 1919 (excluding the claim of the French railways settled in April, 1925), was £19,000,000. The detailed accounts are no longer available, and it is, therefore, impossible to state definitely whether this figure includes road and building materials purchased for use in France. The payments were made in French currency; prior to June, 1917, the French currency was purchased in the market, but from June, 1917, onwards the French currency was borrowed from the French Government and the sterling equivalent was set off against the French War Debt to Great Britain. The rate of exchange adopted was that current when the services were rendered, usually about Fcs. 27 to £1. No estimate is available of the total payments between April, 1919, and the withdrawal of British troops from Germany, but during this period payments in French currency were, generally speaking, made out of francs obtained by the sale of surplus stores in France.

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (ALLOWANCES).

Mr. MCSHANE: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in regard to payment of Members of this House, he will introduce a means test similar to that proposed for working-class people in the Education Bill?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: Such a question would appropriately be left to the judgment of this House.

Mr. MCSHANE: Would not this give hon. and right hon. Members opposite an excellent opportunity of proving their sincerity?

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Why "opposite"?

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (TAXATION).

Sir BASIL PETO: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the deficit that he anticipates, he will consider the advisability of bringing the £300,000,000 of annual trade of the co-operative societies within the range of taxation in some form equivalent to that borne by trade in private hands?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: In this case, as in that of all other suggestions for taxation changes, the appropriate opportunity for discussion will arise in the course of the debates on this year's Finance Bill.

Sir B. PETO: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any estimate of what revenue he would derive if this sum were brought under taxation?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Those figures have been stated. I think the amount would be about £400,000.

Sir B. PETO: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the figures he referred to are only—

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Smithers!

SILVER.

Mr. SMITHERS: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the recommendation of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate of the United States of America for restoring the price of silver, he has received an invitation from the American Government to attend a conference; and what action His Majesty's Government intend to take in the matter?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and accordingly the second part does not arise.

Mr. SMITHERS: In view of the world interest which is now being taken in the price of silver, will not the right hon. Gentleman take every opportunity to consult with other nations about any arrangements being made, so that Great Britain shall not be left out when a decision is come to?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not think it is for the British Government to take the initiative in a matter like this. That ought to rest with other countries, who have a far greater interest than we have in this matter; but, of course, if there is any international conference, we shall consider our position.

Sir H. SAMUEL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the Lancashire cotton trade has an immense interest in this matter?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Of course, this is highly debatable and technical matter, but I think our position in regard to the silver question is sometimes over-emphasised.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any prospect of this question being examined by the League of Nations?

Sir W. DAVISON: 77.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in view of the recent fall in the value of silver, which handicaps the purchase by silver-using countries such as India and China of goods manufactured in this country, the cost of production of which is based on the value of gold, what action the Government contemplate to deal with this handicap to British industry?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to the Noble Lord the Member for the Harborough Division (Earl Castle Stewart), on the 29th January, and to the answers to supplementaries which he has given to-day.

Sir W. DAVISON: Have not the circumstances greatly changed, now that silver is 1s. an ounce?

GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS.

Mr. HACKING: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any buildings at present occupied by Government Departments will be surrendered, and/or whether there will be any redistribution of Government Departments, as a result of the recommendations of the Howard Frank Committee?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The report of the Committee which was only received a few days ago is at present under consideration.

Mr. HACKING: If I put down another question, when will the right hon. Gentleman be able to answer it?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I cannot say.

UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 60.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the nature of the new financial proposals which will be required to give effect to the decision of the House on unemployment relief?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not understand what decision of the House the hon. Member alludes to, and I am not aware of any specific decision of the House on unemployment relief.

WAR LOAN.

Major NATHAN: 62.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the gross amount of interest on 5 per Cent. War Loan, 1929–47, paid daring 1930 or any other recent convenient period of 12 months; and what proportion thereof is chargeable to Sur-tax in the hands of the recipients?

Mr SNOWDEN: The gross amount paid as interest on the 5 per Cent. War Loan during the year 1930 was £104,576,000. I have no information as to the proportion thereof which is chargeable to Sur-tax.

Major NATHAN: 63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the amount of 5 per Cent. War Loan 1929–47 outstanding at the latest convenient date; and in what proportion he estimates the same is held by the Bank of England and British joint stock banks, and foreign banks with offices in London, by the Post Office Savings Bank and the trustee savings banks, by insurance companies, by railway companies, by private persons liable to estate duty, and by foreigners, trusts, charities, trade unions, joint stock companies, etc., respectively?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The amount of 5 per Cent. War Loan outstanding on the 31st December, 1930, was £2,087,035,000. The information asked for in the second part of the question is not available.

Major NATHAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the report of the Colwyn Committee, a table appears on which this question is based setting out the distribution of the National Debt; and is it not possible to make a similar statement with regard to the 5 per Cent. War Loan at this date?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I am advised that the material for such a compilation is not available.

GERMAN REPARATIONS AND INTER-ALLIED DEBTS.

Mr. WISE: 64.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state, for the financial year, 1931–32, what are expected to be the total receipts of the United Kingdom on account of reparations and of War debts due both from Allied Powers and from the Dominions; and what will be the total payments on account of our debt due to the United States of America?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: As regards our receipts from reparation and Allied War debts and our payments to the United States of America in the financial year, 1931–32, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the Noble Lord the Member for the Weston-super-Mare Division (Lord Erskine) on the 29th January. The figure of £33,350,000 given in that answer should however be £33,550,000. Our receipts from the Dominions on account of War debts, during the same period, should amount to £7,653,000.

Mr. WISE: Are we to assume that the Balfour formula with regard to reparations and Allied War debts does not include the amount paid to us by the Dominions?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The basis of the Balfour Note or the part of it upon which the various debt and reparation settlements have been made is that there should be a correspondence between what we have to pay to America and what we receive from our debtors, and that has been fulfilled.

Mr. WISE: Is it not the case that we are £5,000,000 or £7,000,000 to the good on balance, and that we are receiving £5,000,000 or £7,000,000 more than we have paid to America?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not think so, but of course there is not every year a precise correspondence, and it may vary from year to year.

Mr. WISE: 66.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state, in respect of the War debts of the United
Kingdom to the United States of America, and of France, Italy, and Australia to the United Kingdom, respectively, what percentage the payments during the financial year, 1931–32, under debt funding agreements will bear to the capital sums outstanding at the beginning of the financial year?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The payment of the United Kingdom to the United States of America Government on account of War debt in the financial year 1931–32 represents 3.64 per cent. of the capital sum outstanding at the beginning of the financial year: in the case of the payment of Australia to the United Kingdom, the corresponding figure is 6.96 per cent. In the case of the French and Italian War debts to the United Kingdom the annuities do not distinguish between capital and interest, and accordingly it is impossible to express the annual payments as a, percentage of the capital sum outstanding at the beginning of the financial year.

Mr. WISE: Is it not the case, even if it is not possible to put it accurately, that we are expecting Australia to pay about four or five times as much per annum correspondingly as has been paid to us by France and Italy?

Mr. SNOWDEN: What we are expecting and what Australia is paying is the sum due under the agreement made between Australia and this country.

Mr. WISE: rose

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot have a Debate on each question.

ROYAL MAIL STEAM PACKET COMPANY.

Sir JOHN FERGUSON: 67.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in view of the fact that irregularities have been disclosed in the conduct of the affairs of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company during the years 1926 to 1929, he will state what steps were taken by the Treasury to ascertain the financial position of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company before they guaranteed loans to that company and/or its subsidiary companies?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: Guarantees under the Trade Facilities Acts were given by
the Treasury on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee appointed under those Acts. No guarantees were given to the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company; and of the two guarantees to its subsidiary companies one was given in 1923 and one in the beginning of 1926.

Sir J. FERGUSON: Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to hold an official inquiry into the statements which have just been issued and which have been so severely condemned?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I have no information at present which would justify such an inquiry.

Mr. WHITE: May I ask whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is fully seized of the very grave and widespread dissatisfaction with the statement of Sir William McLintock that fraudulent balance-sheets have been issued, and would the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability, in the interests of the good name of British commerce and industry, of instituting an inquiry into this matter, and, if necessary, associating with it the Law Officers of the Crown?

Mr. SNOWDEN: That does not fall within my province. If such an inquiry were instituted, it would have to be undertaken by another Government Department.

Mr. LAMBERT: Where these trade facilities grants are made to private companies, does the Treasury examine the balance-sheets of the companies to see whether they are accurate or not?

Mr. SNOWDEN: As it happens, neither of those two guarantees were given during the time that I was in charge, and therefore I do not know whether the balance-sheets were examined or not.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: But surely the right hon. Gentleman can find out.

Mr. SPEAKER: Supplementary questions are becoming abused.

Mr. LAMBERT: 69.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the amount of advances that have been made under the Trade Facilities or other Acts to the Royal Mail group of companies; how much of these advances are outstanding; and whether there is security to cover the taxpayer against loss?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I presume the right hon. Member to refer to the whole of the subsidiary and associated shipping companies of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company. The only advances to this group with which His Majesty's Government is directly concerned are the loans guaranteed under the Trade Facilities Acts 1921–1926. These loans totalled approximately £5,400,000 of which some £4,300,000 is now outstanding. On the basis of going concern values I am advised that these loans are adequately secured.

Mr. HANNON: 70.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that among the liabilities of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company through a subordinate company is a sum of £2,074,200 guaranteed by His Majesty's Government, he will explain the position of the Treasury in the matter?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The hon. Member presumably refers to the liabilities of the Oceanic Steam Navigation Company under the heading of Government Guaranteed Loans, amounting to £2,074,200. Of this amount, £1,540,000 represents loans guaranteed by His Majesty's Treasury under the Trade Facilities Acts, and the balance loans guaranteed by the Northern Irish Ministry of Finance. The loans under the Trade Facilities Acts are guaranteed as to principal and interest by His Majesty's Treasury.

Mr. HANNON: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is quite satisfied that the securities in this case are adequate?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I am advised that that is the case.

TAXATION.

Mr. BRACKEN: 68.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the condition of the nation's finance, he will assure the House that no further facilities will be granted for schemes which will inflict any liability on the taxpayers?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I have nothing to add to the statement which I made on Wednesday last.

INCOME TAX RECEIPTS.

Mr. REMER: 71.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that whenever an owner of property pays his Schedule A Income Tax, covering a number of houses, with one cheque, receipts are sent for each house; if he will state what is the reason for this procedure; and if, in the interests of public economy, he will take steps to change this procedure?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I will look into this matter and communicate with the hon. Member in due course.

LAND PURCHASE, IRELAND.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 73.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how much money has been advanced by the British Government under the Land Purchase Acts since 1885 to tenant farmers in Ireland to enable them to purchase their lands under these Acts; and how much money has the British Government undertaken to guarantee under the Land Acts passed in the Irish Free State, namely, the Land Acts of 1923, 1926, 1927 and 1929?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The total amounts advanced by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom since 1885 under the Irish Land Purchase Acts are:
In cash, £93,426,703 (including £5,279,229 advanced to Local Authorities under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1906 and 1911).
In stock, £38,279,857.
The amount of Irish Free State 4½ per cent. Land Bonds guaranteed by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom outstanding on the 31st March last, the latest date for which figures are available, was £7,630,249.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS (RUSSIA).

Mr. VAUGHAN: 74.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total number of questions submitted concerning Russia during this Parliament and the approximate cost of preparing replies thereto?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am afraid it is not possible to estimate the cost of supplying answers to Members' questions. The labour of ascertaining the number of questions during the present Parliament concerning Russia would be considerable, and I should not feel justified in asking my staff to undertake it.

Captain P. MACDONALD: Is that due to the unsatisfactory nature of the replies given by right hon. Gentlemen opposite?

INCOME TAX (FOREIGN ARTISTS).

Sir F. HALL: 75 and 76.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (1) what was the financial loss to the Treasury incurred in the two years ended 31st December, 1930, owing to the default of foreign artists performing in theatres, music halls, and other places of entertainment in Great Britain in paying the Income Tax to which they were assessable;
(2) if in future consideration will be given to the question of refusing permission to foreign artists to perform in this country unless they furnish satisfactory guarantees for the discharge of their liabilities in respect of Income Tax on the salaries earned by them here?

Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: The figures asked for are not available, but it may be estimated that the total amount of duty which escaped collection in these cases falls between £25,000 and £50,000 per annum. As I indicated in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member on the 9th December last, I am reconsidering the whole of this matter, and will bear in mind the suggestion which he now makes as to the furnishing of guarantees.

Sir F. HALL: Will the hon. Gentleman, in considering this matter, recognise what has been done in the United States of America, where these artists are not allowed to leave the country until they have proved that they have discharged their liabilities in that country?

Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: All relevant considerations will be taken into account.

INDIA (NEGOTIATIONS).

Mr. CHURCHILL: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the contradictory reports from Delhi and in London of the alleged intention of His Majesty's Government to send the Secretary of State for India and the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs on a mission to India in the near future, and whether he has any statement to make to Parliament upon the subject.

The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that from time to time, and usually in connection with situations which are extremely delicate, baseless rumours appear in news reports. This is a case in point, and I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for putting this question. No such decision has been made. The Government have been considering, in consultation with the Viceroy, how best to carry on the negotiations begun here in London, and when arrangements have been completed they will be announced to this House.

Mr. CHURCHILL: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the statement which he has just made will give rise to a very considerable and widespread feeling of relief and approval throughout the country; and, secondly, whether, in the event of any mission being sent, the House will have the opportunity of discussing beforehand the proposals of the Government, when definite information will have been laid before the House as to the exact scope and purpose of the mission?

The PRIME MINISTER: I really must hold that in that respect the House has given us our marching orders.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot possibly allow that statement to pass—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]—without asking the Prime Minister to define much more exactly what he means by that vague and menacing phrase?

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to take any action against the authors of these malicious rumours?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. CHURCHILL: May I ask the Prime Minister a question about business? Since the announcement of business was made, the Chairman of Ways and Means has put down an important Private Bill for 7.30; and, in view of that fact, would the Government state how far they intend to go in the series of Bills which are before us this afternoon?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is quite true that, since the business was announced last Thursday, the Chairman of Ways and Means has put down the Surrey County Council Bill. I have no means of ascertaining how long the Debate on that Bill may last—[HON. MEMBERS: "Three hours!"]—but we

announced that we should take the first three Orders in addition to the Money Resolution. Of these Orders, the third—Unemployment Insurance [Money] (No. 2), Report—is urgently needed, and must be got. Regarding the first and second Orders, both of which are important, we should like to make progress, but perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if the usual communications might be made during the day.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 268; Noes, 152.

Division No. 152.]
AYES.
[3.51 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Duncan, Charles
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Ede, James Chuter
Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Edmunds, J. E.
Kelly, W. T.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Egan, W. H.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Alpass, J. H.
Elmley, Viscount
Kinley, J.


Ammon, Charles George
Foot, Isaac
Knight, Holford


Arnott, John
Forgan, Dr. Robert
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)


Aske, Sir Robert
Freeman, Peter
Lang, Gordon


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Ayles, Walter
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
Lathan, G.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Law, A. (Rossendale)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lawrence, Susan


Barnes, Alfred John
Gibbins, Joseph
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Barr, James
Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)
Lawson, John James


Batey, Joseph
Gill, T. H.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Glassey, A. E.
Leach, W.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, central)
Gossling, A. G.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Gould, F.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Benson, G.
Gray, Milner
Lees, J.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Blindell, James
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lindley, Fred W.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Bowen, J. W.
Groves, Thomas E.
Logan, David Gilbert


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Longbottom, A. W.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Longden, F.


Bromley, J.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Lowth, Thomas


Brooke, W.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Lunn, William


Brothers, M.
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Brown Ernest (Leith)
Hardie, George D.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
McElwee, A.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
McEntee, V. L.


Buchanan, G.
Haycock, A. W.
McKinlay, A.


Burgess, F. G.
Hayday, Arthur
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)


Baxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Hayes, John Henry
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Calne, Derwent Hall
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Charleton, H. C.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
McShane, John James


Chater, Daniel
Herriotts, J.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Church, Major A. G.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Cluse, W. S.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Mansfield, W.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hoffman, P. C.
March, S.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hollins, A.
Marcus, M.


Compton, Joseph
Hopkin, Daniel
Markham, S. F.


Cove, William G.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Marley, J.


Cowan, D. M.
Hudson, James H. (Ruddersfield)
Marshall, F.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Mathers, George


Daggar, George
Isaacs, George
Matters, L. W.


Dallas, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Messer, Fred


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Middleton, G.


Day, Harry
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Millar, J. D.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Mills, J. E.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne)
Mliner, Major J.


Dukes, C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Montague, Frederick


Morley, Ralph
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Strauss, G. R.


Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Romeril, H. G.
Sullivan, J.


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Sutton, J. E.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Rowson, Guy
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Mort, D. L.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Tillett, Ben


Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Sanders, W. S.
Tinker, John Joseph


Muff, G.
Sandham, E.
Toole, Joseph


Muggerldge, H. T.
Sawyer, G. F.
Townend, A. E.


Murnin, Hugh
Scott, James
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Nathan, Major H. L.
Scrymgeour, E.
Vaughan, David


Naylor, T. E.
Sexton, Sir James
Viant, S. P.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Walkden, A. G.


Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wallace, H. W.


Oldfield, J. R.
Sherwood, G. H.
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Shield, George William
Watkins, F. C.


Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Palin, John Henry
Shillaker, J. F.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Palmer, E. T.
Shinwell, E.
Wellock, Wilfred


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Perry, S. F.
Simmons, C. J.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
West, F. R.


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
White, H. G.


Phillips, Dr. Marion
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Pole, Major D. G.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Potts, John S.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Price, M. P.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Pybus, Percy John
Snell, Harry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Rathbone, Eleanor
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Wise, E. F.


Raynes, W. R.
Stamford, Thomas W.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Richards, R.
Stephen, Campbell



Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Paling and Mr. Thurtle.


NOES


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Muirhead, A. J.


Albery, Irving James
Everard, W. Lindsay
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Ferguson, Sir John
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Atholl, Duchess of
Fermoy, Lord
O'Connor, T. J.


Atkinson, C.
Fielden, E. B.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Balniel, Lord
Ford, Sir P. J.
Penny, Sir George


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Beaumont, M. W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Ganzonl, Sir John
Ramsbotham, H.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Bird, Ernest Roy
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gower, Sir Robert
Remer, John R.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Boyce, Leslie
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)


Bracken, B.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Briscoe, Richard George
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd'., Hexham)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Salmon, Major I.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Buchan, John
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hanbury, C.
Savery, S. S.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Simms, Major-General J.


Butler, R. A.
Hartington, Marquess of
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Campbell, E. T.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Smithers, Waldron


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth,S.)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Christie, J. A.
Hurd, Percy A.
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Iveagh, Countess of
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Colman, N. C. D.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Colville, Major D. J.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Cranborne, Viscount
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. or W.)
Todd, Capt. A. J


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Macquisten, F. A.
Train, J.


Davison, Sir W. H (Kensington, S.)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Dawson, Sir Philip
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Dundale, Capt. T. L.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Eden, Captain Anthony
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.




Warrender, sir Victor
Withers, Sir John James
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount



Wells, Sydney R.
Womersley, W. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Wood, Rt. Hon. sir Kingsley
Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain


Windsor-Clive, Lieut. Colonel George
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)
Margesson.

COLONIAL NAVAL DEFENCE BILL [LORDS].

Reported, without Amendment, from standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Thursday.

SELECTION (STANDING COM- MITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. Frederick Hall reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Major Sir Herbert Cayzer, Mr. Herbert Gibson, Sir Alfred Law, Mr. Lees, Dr. Morris-Jones, Sir Basil Peto, Mr. Rosbotham, Mr. Sinkinson, Mr. Stanley, Mr. Wallhead, and Mr. Wright; and had appointed in substitution: Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Carter, Major Lloyd George, Captain Fergus Graham, Captain Gunstan, Lieut.-Colonel Ruggles-Brise, Mr. Shepherd, Sir Ernest Shepperson, Mr. Watson, and Mr. Charles Williams.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. Frederick Hall further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Thirty Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Agricultural Marketing Bill): Dr. Addison, the Lord Advocate, Colonel Ashley, Mr. Attlee, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Benson, Mr. Blindell, Mr. Butler, Mr. Cameron, Sir Henry Cautley, Sir Samuel Chapman, Mr. Chater, Mr. Dallas, Dr. Forgan, Mr. Granville, Sir Harry Hope, Sir Robert Hutchison, Mr. Johnston, Colonel Lane Fox, Mr. Arthur Law, Mr. Maitland, Mr. Marshall, Major Milner, Mr. Ormsby-Gore, Mr. Perry, Mr. Ross, Mr. Savory, Lord Stanley, Captain Todd, and Viscount Wolmer.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable schemes to be made for regulating the marketing of agricultural products, to confer powers upon boards and other bodies to be constituted in connection with, or acting for purposes connected with, such schemes, to establish agricultural marketing funds for the purpose of making loans thereout to the boards aforesaid, to encourage agricultural co-operation, research, and education, and to provide for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the making of the following payments, out of moneys provided by Parliament, that is to say,—

(a) payments into the Agricultural Marketing Fund, established under the said Act for the purpose of making loans to boards administering schemes under the Act, of such sums, not exceeding in the aggregate five hundred thousand pounds, as Parliament may from time to time determine;
(b) payments into the Agricultural Marketing (Scotland) Fund, established as aforesaid, of such sums, not exceeding in the aggregate one hundred and twenty-five thousand pounds, as Parliament may from time to time determine;
(c) payments into each of the said funds of amounts equal to any sums from time to time written off the account of its assets in accordance with the provisions of the said Act;
(d) payment of any expenses incurred in accordance with the provisions of the said Act by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries or the Secretary of State for Scotland in paying such remuneration to the chairman and other members, and the secretary, officers, agents, and servants, of any commission or committee constituted under the said Act, and such other expenses of any commission or committee so constituted or of any inquiry held under the said Act, as may be determined or incurred with the approval of the Treasury;
(e) payment of an annual grant of such amounts as may from time to time be determined by the Treasury to any organisation, or to the governing body of any organisation, in which organisation or body the powers and duties conferred on an Agricultural Marketing Reorganisation Commission by the said Act are vested by order of the Secretary of State for Scotland, for the purpose of meeting the expenses incurred
1096
by the organisation or body in carrying out such powers and duties."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Dr. Addison.]

4.0 p.m.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): This Resolution covers the financial commitments of the Agricultural Marketing Bill, and I think it is fair to say that, seeing the magnitude of the complicated operations of the general scheme of the Bill, this is as modest a demand on the finances of the country as any Bill of its kind has ever made. As a matter of fact, apart from the loans referred to, for which £500,000 is available for England and Wales and £125,000—more than the traditional eleven-eightieths is made available for Scotland—this relatively, as for as loans go, is a small amount, and I think that many English Members will agree with me in recognising that in this respect we have much to envy our brethren across the B order.

The design of the Bill is to set up a number of self-supporting institutions. We contemplate that there shall be agricultural marketing boards which shall conduct their own operations in a sound way, and shall be able to support themselves, and the scheme of this finance is really little more than to help them to bring themselves into being and to cover their initial expenses. In the ordinary way, a marketing board would be able to obtain credit. on the commodities committed to their charge by the producers, but, in order to facilitate their operations, it is provided, in Clause 12, that long-term loans for specified purposes may be made to the boards; it will be noticed, however, that our commitments there are severely limited. It is there provided:
that the amount outstanding of the loans made under this Section shall not at any time exceed in the aggregate £100,000.
And then, in course of time, it will be the practice of boards to finance any capital undertakings out of their savings. As showing how the Clause will operate, take a commodity like milk—by a levy upon their producers the possible scope before these boards is indicated in the figures I am giving. If the National Milk Marketing Board which, I hope, will be created under this Bill, were to make a levy of 1 per cent. upon its members, that 1 per cent. would yield an annual revenue of
£500,000. It is evident, therefore, that a levy of a small amount covering such things as potatoes, which are widely distributed but of great value, will yield a very large revenue for the board. In the ordinary way, of course, the board will have difficulty in starting out. It is on that account that the provision in the Bill, which is covered by the Resolution, as to short-term loans is inserted, but it is there prescribed:
On the approval of any scheme under this Act, the Minister may make to the Board a loan of such amount as he thinks necessary for the purpose of providing for expenses incurred in connection with the initial working of the scheme.
It is quite evident that, having regard to the expense necessary to their operation, the boards will, in the first instance, properly expect that we may give them some help in starting out. These loans will have to be repaid within two years, although it is provided, in special cases, that for a short term they may be free of interest. If we got these boards started as an ordinary business undertaking, they would have no difficulty in raising the necessary finance to carry on their marketing operations, and, therefore, it is not contemplated that, except for the initial period, each business organisation will need any help from the State. As a matter of fact, what we are aiming at is to try to create self-supporting marketing organisations based upon the producers themselves.
I have not heard any material criticism on this part of the scheme, but there was one point which, I believe, the Noble Lord opposite indicates in his Amendment, and that is the liability which may rest upon members in the event of a board going into liquidation—a very proper matter to raise, and clearly we ought to safeguard the interests of the members against a rash or improvident board. I hope that we shall approach these things in this Bill entirely in that spirit, so as to make a businesslike organisation. There is, however—and it is material to the contingent liability of the board—explicit provision in the Bill which, I think, has been rather over-looked, limiting the liability of its members in the event of the liquidation of a board, and if hon. Members will turn to the Second Schedule they will see there that, under paragraphs 7 and 8 the liability of the members is limited accord-
ing to an amount prescribed in the scheme. As hon. Members will remember, the first thing that will happen on the creation of a board is that a scheme is prepared, and before it comes into operation it has to be approved. That, scheme must contain within it a statement of the liability that rests upon members in the event of the liquidation of the board, and that it is limited to a certain percentage of the sales of a particular product during the preceding year. It. cannot be an unlimited liability. That is to say, each member, of course, has his own account with the board, and in this, as in every other respect in the Bill, the rights, privileges, profits, etc., of members correspond precisely to the amount of their transactions with the board. The Schedule says:
In the event of the winding up of a board, every person who, at any time during the relevant period, was a registered producer shall be liable to contribute to the payment of the debts and liabilities of the board and to the payment of the costs and expenses of the winding up such proportion as may be provided in the scheme of the aggregate amount of the sums paid or payable to him in respect of the sale of the regulated product during that period.
If the Committee will look a little further, they will see that the period during which the liability might be incurred is:
(a) in a case where, before the commencement of the winding up, the scheme has been revoked, the year immediately before the revocation of the scheme.
(b) in any other case, the year immediately before the commencement of the winding up.
So that it is limited to one year. It is limited to the proportion of the members' products dealt with in that year, and it is limited as provided in the scheme as drawn up. I think that these limitations on the liabilities of the members have been rather overlooked in some of the criticisms.
We come, finally, to the administrative expenses which this Bill may involve, and there, again, I think I can say that notwithstanding misrepresentations of myself and my frugality, that the administrative scheme is extraordinarily economical. We anticipate that the maximum expenditure which may be involved in administrative expenses under the Bill will not be much more than £40,000. If we can bring in self-supporting marketing boards to enable
the producers to make a better bargain at a trivial expense of that kind, it will be a very splendid national investment. Therefore, I make no apology for costs of that kind, and hon. Members will observe that these expenses are practically incurred in four directions. There is a standing committee which will investigate the applications for loans and so on—a marketing facilities committee. There will be a certain amount of staff required, and so on. There are the expenses of any inquiry which the Ministry may have to make, the expenses attaching to committees of investigation. I hope that hon. Members will recognise the importance of these committees, because a good many of the criticisms of the Bill lost sight of it altogether. They are to be called upon in the initiation of schemes, or in a preparatory period to investigate complaints made by any given body of producers who say they ought to be exempt from the operations of the scheme, and all that sort of thing. A committee is clearly necessary for that, and to deal fairly between different producers.
The same applies, I think, to the consumers' committee which, I hope, will never have to function, but we have to recognise that it may be required, and we propose in this Bill, in setting up a great national organisation, to see that we have some machinery, in the event of their unduly trying to oppress the consumers, for the consumers to be heard. There is one other class of expense, and one only, and in that this Bill differs from the first. The Agricultural Marketing Re-organisation Commission which is referred to in Clause 13—and I may have to defend that proposal in Committee—is, I think, a vast improvement on the original scheme of the Bill. Of course, it is quite evident that in the early days producers will be rather at a loss as to how to shape their schemes, how to get together, and so on. Therefore, it is necessary that we should be able to get together a body of experienced men and others who can frame schemes in order to help them in the early stages in promoting schemes. I regard this as a very great improvement on the first scheme of the Bill, and it will, I am sure, save us many months of time in the preparation of the schemes. It does not in any way
affect the fact that the schemes must be approved by the producers and submitted by the producers themselves. I suggest that, in view of the vast project which this Bill envisages, a Bill making a smaller demand on national funds has never been presented to this House.

Mr. GUINNESS: This afternoon we have heard the right hon. Gentleman in a new role, appealing for support for an agricultural Measure on the ground that the proposals are not going to cost very much money. We must be thankful for small mercies and must recognise that this is the first Bill which we have had from him in this great agricultural policy which deals in fractions of a million, and it is something to be grateful for that the total is, in his words, only to be £500,000, plus the £125,000 which is to be given to our fortunate neighbours beyond the border. I do not quite understand why they are going to get this favoured treatment, and receive more than the usual eleven-eightieths. No doubt we shall have some explanation of this new precedent when my noble Friend comes to move his Amendment.
There was nothing in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to dispose of the fundamental objections which we on this side took to the proposals on the Second Reading of the Bill. We do not believe that under present circumstances, with the international problem of dumped supplies causing a crash in prices and a disastrous glut, that it is possible to, stabilise prices at remunerative levels without some form of control of foreign supplies. The misgivings which we feel on the details of the proposals have been developed at an earlier stage, but, even if this Bill were entirely harmless in its details, we should not be justified in incurring this great expense unless we were satisfied that it was going to be effective in helping the farmer to get a better price for his products. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us within the last week that expenditure which would be easy and tolerable in prosperous times becomes intolerable in a time like this of grave industrial depression.
It is possible that a well-considered scheme of marketing reform might be productive. It might seem that an improvement in marketing would do much for agriculture in what would be a very
fertile field, and I cannot think of any £30,000 or £40,000 a year which gives a better result than the grant which was given by the Empire Marketing Board to help the marketing of British products. Unfortunately, in this great field for better organisation, this Bill seems to be largely useless. It is based on the delusion that considerably better prices can be achieved by forcing producers into compulsory combinations. It loses sight of the fact that the real trouble has been the glut of dumped produce. The Minister has apparently changed his mind since he introduced the predecessor of this Bill last year. He has now appreciated that he cannot secure stabilisation of prices, which we think alone would justify this compulsion, merely by means of setting up boards with compulsory powers. The provision in the First Schedule making stabilisation of price a condition of the Minister's consent to the formation of a Board and which was in the Bill of last year has now been cut out, and we feel that without that inducement of stabilisation of price, it is not reasonable to compel the producer to sacrifice his liberty. Though this Resolution makes a very wide provision in the preamble for agricultural co-operation, research, and education, as far as I can understand the Bill and the channels through which the grants have to go, none of those objects can be achieved except through the agency of these boards which are only to be brought into being for the purpose of running these compulsory schemes where compulsion is the essence of the proposal, and though there are several conditions which are optional, Clause 4 (a) shows that no board can get any money or be in a position to use it for these subsidiary purposes, unless a compulsory scheme forcing all producers into its mesh is put into force.
I do not think that compulsion will satisfy producers at the present time. I know that it appeals to the Minister as a great step towards the national control of trade. The party opposite have told us on many former occasions that they wish to see all means of production and distribution in the control of the State, and just as the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill is a long step towards the nationalisation of land, this Bill is a step towards the national control of
agricultural marketing, and that is why, no doubt, regardless of the opposition of the producers concerned, the right hon. Gentleman is so anxious to secure its passage. It is very strange how completely indifferent the Minister of Agriculture seems to be to the opinion of the industry which it is his duty to look after. I know too well that some of his predecessors have been criticised by the industry for not being able, on political grounds, to concede all the Measures which have been pressed upon them, and the Measures which have been passed have very often been adjudged by the industry not to go as far as they would wish. I do not think, however, that there has ever before been a Minister of Agriculture who has persisted in legislation which has been overwhelmingly condemned by the organised opinion of agricultural producers as represented by their trade organisations.
There is no doubt that the agricultural industry dreads the imposition of the control proposed in this Measure. I do not think that they would be reassured by what the right hon. Gentleman has told us to-day about the Second Schedule. The proposals for liquidation seem to be extremely disquieting. The Minister told us that there was a maximum, that the regulations would not go beyond the full amount received either from the Board or by marketing under the Board regulations for the period of a year. Surely this is a very drastic proposal. It is a very great departure from the general tendency of Parliament to try and limit liability. Generally, liability is limited by some definite capital subscription, and I think that it is a very serious matter for the agricultural community that their liability as members, against their will too often, of these new Boards, will be limited only by the total amount of their individual business whether actually handled by the Board or merely controlled by the Board regulations.
I feel very strongly about this danger, in view of what happened three years ago when we had to come to this House for a very large Supplementary Estimate, on account of the disaster which threatened the member societies of the Agricultural Wholesale Society. The late Government felt that it was im-
perative in the interests of agricultural co-operation that these member Societies should be saved, and I hope for that reason the Minister will listen sympathetically to the case which my right hon. Friend will put forward for a provision in this Financial Resolution that we shall not put this largely unlimited and indefinite liability on to the members of these societies, but that the State shall make provision in the finance of this Bill for saving them from disaster if these Boards, into which they are to be brought as unwilling partners, should by misfortune, fail. Even if the right hon. Gentleman can meet us on this particular point it will only be an alleviation. It will not remove what seem to me to be fundamental objections to any such proposal for compulsory powers under present circumstances. I think the producers are right in their fears and that what this Bill will do will be to tie the hands of the British producers so that overseas competitors may pick their pockets.

Dr. ADDISON: They are helpless, as it is.

Mr. GUINNESS: No. They can deal with overseas competition by adjusting their prices. If their prices are to be made rigid, in accordance with doctrinaire theories from the other side of the House, it will throw open the door wide to far more disastrous competition than now exists. It is not merely or primarily on the details of the Bill that I base my opposition to this Financial Resolution, but it is because at this time of financial crisis, about which we had very grave warning only last week from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we are less than ever justified in facing this speculative and unwise expenditure.

Major - General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: I do not quite take the view just expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, although I agree with a certain amount of what he has said. As regards the winding-up of any boards, it is only fair that any loss should be borne by the State. In organising the boards it is proposed to compel the minority—I presume the system will not be introduced unless the majority wishes it—to come in, and it would be funds-
mentally unjust that they should have to sell their produce through a board which the majority wishes to be set up and should also have the implied liability which might arise if and when the board is not successful. Therefore, there is a good deal to be said for the Amendment which has been put down by hon. Members above the Gangway, demanding that some safeguard should be inserted by the State if and when these experiments, because they are experiments, are not successful.
I listened with interest to what the Minister of Agriculture said in introducing the Financial Resolution, but he did not clear my mind on one or two points. The Financial Resolution takes power to devote the money to "any Act of the present Session." Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate anything other than the present Bill? It is a widely drawn power which he seeks and may apply to other Acts of the Session. The money is to be employed to enable schemes to be made. I have not heard how the schemes are to be initiated. The Bill lays down that a scheme shall not be initiated unless the majority of the producers wish to have the scheme. Does the Minister of Agriculture contemplate going to the producers and asking them to initiate a scheme, or is he going to appoint a commission or a committee to draw up a scheme and then canvass the producers as to whether they are in favour of the scheme? How does he contemplate introducing the scheme? I can see the possibility of a waste of money in drawing up schemes for a great many commodities such as are recorded in the Schedule; schemes which cannot be successful.
The right hon. Gentleman is going to devote his energies, if such be his intention, to drafting embryo schemes, by means of a committee or a commission, a great many of which could not be successful. Therefore, I should like to know how he is going to initiate the schemes. If and when a scheme has been prepared is he going to spend money on agents who will go round to the various producers in the capacity of propaganda agents? If so, a great deal of money may be spent which will not have a remunerative return. I understand that commissions will be set up by the Minister. Are the producers to have any power in
the election of those who are to sit on the commissions, or are they to be purely nominated persons in the first instance? It is very difficult to introduce a scheme such as is laid down in the Bill. If we are to have schemes of this sort to deal with agricultural produce, it seems to me that we must have compulsion in some form or other. I hate the idea of compelling anyone to come in and to sell their produce through a board—that is a direct violation of Free Trade—but our experience shows, especially in connection with the Hop Board, that schemes of this sort will break down unless there is some form of compulsion. The question arises how many are you going to compel? To what extent are you going to demand a majority in order to bring in a scheme?
It is certainly my view—I do not know how many of my hon. Friends on these benches share the view—that if you are to have schemes of this sort you must have some form of compulsion. That being so, it ought to be the business of the Minister to limit and concentrate his efforts on things that are possible rather than on things that are not possible. Thereby he might get success. I do not see why he should not get success in some directions. In dealing with such matters as wheat production, milk, potatoes, etc., it would be better if we had some form of board controlling the particular product, but if these schemes are to be successful there must be a tremendous amount of approval from the producers, otherwise you get dissatisfaction on the part of the producers, who might feel aggrieved that they are being driven into this thing, whereas they might think that if they had been left to sell their own produce it would have been very much better. The schemes ought to be concentrated on one, two, three or four things. To go forward with the long list of produce that is enumerated in Schedule 4, such as milk, potatoes, hops, wool, cereals, cheese, cattle, sheep, pigs, eggs, poultry and fruit and to produce a scheme for each, is asking for failure at the start.
Speaking with respect to the particular commodity of which I have knowledge, I can assure the Minister that he will find it extremely difficult to apply his scheme to any form of cereals. I am convinced that he can never apply it to barley. The
only cereal to which he could possibly apply it would be wheat, and only then after developing a standard type of wheat, or one or two standard types, which might be stored in bulk and dealt with by the board. The Minister will find it extremely difficult to deal with cereals, store cattle, poultry, eggs and, perhaps, fruit. It is perfectly clear that in order to get any success there must be a large body of agreement. I do not want the money, which we can hardly spare, to be wasted in useless efforts on schemes that are not likely to be successful. I want the Minister to concentrate his attention and the attention of the Committee, when we reach the Committee stage, on feasible schemes, and to drop the others out of the Bill. If he continues with the wide range of produce scheduled in the Bill he will attract a very large degree of opposition in Committee. A declaration from the Minister on the Financial Resolution on this point might help the Committee in dealing with the Bill. He might state that he intends to concentrate on one or two things and to leave the others over at the present time. In that way he might concentrate the views of those in the industry and get some agreement which would lead to a constructive Measure.
It is obvious to anyone who studies this type of marketing that the main argument against touching anything that is imported, say, from Belgium, Holland, Denmark or elsewhere is that: "You must not touch it, because it would interfere with the principle of Free Trade," but immediately we start compulsion we touch Free Trade. When this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament it will inevitably produce a demand by those who are compelled to sell their articles through the boards—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not want unduly to restrict the Debate, but I think the hon. and gallant Member's speech is more suitable for the Second Reading of the Bill, or for the Committee stage. This is a Money Resolution, and we must confine ourselves within reasonable distance of the financial aspect of the Bill.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: I will not pursue that matter further. My desire is that any money that we allocate shall be properly spent and bring good value.
When we have spent money in producing schemes for the marketing of goods, we immediately come up against the marketing moans which exist at the present time. There are the merchants and auction marts that deal with these commodities. I see nothing in the Bill that will deal with their hard cases. These people are paying their taxes and actually paying money that is to be devoted to this Bill. In my country there are auction marts, with large buildings and fine organisations. Are you going to absorb them? It seems to me a little hard, when you are spending money to produce means which will deprive them of their livelihood, that you should not do something for them. Some of the money which we are voting to-day should go in this direction, otherwise you will do a great injustice to people who have built up their business for generations and who have stood by the agricultural community. They should have some consideration.
The Money Resolution demands careful consideration. We want further information from the Minister of Agriculture as to what he proposes to do in regard to the initiation of schemes and the number of products which will be dealt with. So far as Scotland is concerned it is perfectly right that a larger sum than eleven-eightieths should be given, because we have been the pioneers in agriculture for generations. If there is one place which deserves help in this matter it is Scotland, where there are wide open areas, and I am glad to see that £125,000 is allocated, which is rather more than our share. I hope the Minister will apply himself to the two questions: the initiation of schemes and the number of products. If he does that he will remove the opposition of some of us to the more embracing character of the Bill and take away the feeling that it includes many things which really should not be found in a Bill of this kind. If and when we get into Committee it will be the duty of everyone to try and deal with what is undoubtedly a difficult problem in a really workable Measure.

Mr. PERRY: In supporting the Money Resolution, I should just like to join issue with the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison). I have not yet heard a case made out for this
increased grant to Scotland, and I am hoping that during the Debate some effort will be made to stand up for the English side. I am getting increasingly suspicious of the coalition of hon. Members opposite and hon. Members from Clydeside on this side of the House. Whenever we have a Debate on Scottish affairs hon. Members from Clydeside and hon. Members opposite are closely locked together in an effort to get as much as possible out of the English Treasury. I cannot concede the point that Scotland should be regarded as the pioneer in agriculture, although I am perfectly willing to admit that they have captured the seat of English Government. Some of us regret that very much, but having surrendered in that direction I think we should be even more reluctant still to see them getting any more of our money.
I welcome the statement of the Minister that other points will be considered in regard to the composition of these marketing boards when the Bill comes before the Committee. I was interested by the observations of the right hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Guinness) in his objections to these marketing boards. When we discussed the establishment of marketing schemes under the Coal Mines Act the main objection of hon. Members opposite against them was that they would mean dearer coal for the consumer. This afternoon we have been told by the right hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds that any idea that these marketing boards will get a better price for the producer is quite a delusion. If that is so I hope we shall hear no more about dearer produce to the consumer. I say quite frankly to the Minister that one of the objections we have at the moment to the Bill, and which we hope to see removed in Committee, is that he might be placing great powers in the hands of these boards. We supported the Bill on Second Reading, and are also supporting the Financial Resolution, but there are many important points which will have to be dealt with in Committee by which we hope to be able to protect the interest of the consumers.
The point that should any of these boards prove a failure and have to be wound up the liabilities are to be met by the members of the board should be taken into consideration with another point, and that is that if these boards are to have these powers it is not un-
reasonable to assume that they may also possibly make profits, and I suggest to the Minister that it is quite possible to devise some scheme whereby a sinking fund, or a charge upon profits made by a Board, would provide for the liabilities of a board which has to be dissolved. I assure the Minister of Agriculture that whilst supporting this Money Resolution there are still important points connected with the Bill which we hope will be thrashed out in Committee.

Viscount LYMINIGTON: In speaking on the Money Resolution I desire to say that I am not an enemy to the general principles of the Bill, however gravely one misdoubts the results which may accrue in trying thus to market certain agricultural products in this country. In the debate on the Second Reading the hon. Member for Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) said that there was too much of the Minister in this Bill. There was great justification for his saying that. He made a further remark that the Minister wore elastic-side boots. When you look at the Money Resolution, and, in particular, at the words in paragraph (e):
payments into each of the said funds of amounts equal to any sums from time to time written off the account of its assets in accordance with the provisions of the said Act;
it would appear that the elastic-side boots are very elastic indeed. That may mean that if these boards incur bad debts, as they undoubtedly will in a time of falling commodity prices, this £500,000 may not be a fraction of a million pounds but may mount into millions of pounds. In Clause 5 of the Bill, Sub-section (2), it would appear that these boards may not only incur losses but are able to incur the maximum loss. The words are:
Any scheme may empower the board—
to lend to any registered producer sums not exceeding the amount which the board estimate that he will receive from the sale of any quantity of the regulated product produced or in course of production by him;
Anyone who has tried to grow cereals knows that in some cases there may be a fall of nearly 30 to 40 per cent. in commodity prices in a year. Hence, if in the course of production the farmer estimates his crop and the
board is going to lend money on his estimate there is a double danger of the produce not only not realising the amount at a time of falling prices, but also of the produce itself being overestimated. We have only to look overseas to realise the difficulties of some of the big pools in cereals owing to the fact that they have advanced too large an amount. There is another danger to face owing to the general tendency of agricultural world-production. Wherever you go there is a glut in cereal production which cannot be turned to human consumption. One obvious market waiting for this glut is the livestock market, and there is no country so capable of producing livestock as this country, and possibly there is no form of agriculture to which this Bill could be so well applied as the products of livestock. If the gluts of cereals are going to be brought to this country as livestock products without any protection it will mean a general cheapening of livestock products coming into this country, and if we are going to lend money to producers against their estimated sales of livestock there is a grave danger, if there is no means of regulating prices, of an immense fall in prices of these commodities.
5.0 p.m.
One cannot possibly tell where the liabilities of this £500,000 are going to end. If it is so difficult and doubtful for the producer, who in many cases will be compelled, and perhaps rightly, to come into the system of marketing, there is also the danger of a marketing board or a co-operative company being wound up. The management on the board is therefore absolutely vital. Hence I support the first Amendment on the Paper. I am against the whole principle of limited liability companies, for I am always Tory enough to believe that property should not be divorced from responsibility. But the responsibility in this case is being taken out of the hands of the producers and put into the hands of the State, and the State should therefore bear some responsibility in the case of the board being wound up. As the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison) has said, this Bill, in applying itself to a specific evil, is attempting to gather up the whole area of agricultural production. Co-operation is grop-
ing in this country and my chief objection to this Bill and its Money Resolution is that it envisages agriculture as if it were as a sort of Mercator's projection, distorted in some cases and unexplored in others. I cannot believe that, as it stands, we should allow it complete freedom unless we consider agriculture as a relief map and unless we take sections in detail together with the whole course of our agricultural study.

Mr. SCOTT: I certainly do not think that the amount which this Resolution will vote for Scotland for the purposes of granting loans to boards is too large. I question whether it will be sufficient for the needs of Scotland. I regard it as a reward of merit rather than anything else. I agree with what was said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Montrose Burghs (Sir R. Hutchison), that Scottish agriculturists are pioneers. We sent Scottish farmers to Essex to train English farmers. The reason that more money is being given proportionately to Scotland is that in Scotland, particularly in connection with co-operation, we have also been pioneers. We have many co-operative "pools" and societies in Scotland who can use and absorb this larger sum, and I think that will be the reason that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will give this increased amount for Scotland. With regard to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Guinness), I think it is right to point out that this Bill has nothing whatever to do with foreign imports. It does not purport to deal with that; it purports to deal with internal marketing, and, to be fair to the Government, we must accept it on that basis. I think the House would have rejected the Bill at once if it had contained provisions for control of imports, because we must regard the inflow of imports as a safety valve to prevent the consumer being exploited.
I assume that the Minister's purpose in regard to this Money Resolution is to make it elastic enough to meet the demands of the Bill in the form in which it may emerge from the Committee, more or less as an agreed Bill, or at least in the form in which the Committee allows the Bill to come again before the House.
I should like to ask the Minister to explain whether he is satisfied, for example, that the Money Resolution will be sufficient to cover the provisions for transport. In Clause 3 (a) of the Bill reference is made to the powers of a board to transport the produce. This is very necessary for the small cultivator. Unless his vegetables and other produce can be collected at some convenient point, he will lose the benefit of the scheme. One could imagine that a system of transport might mean a very large outlay if it is done without proper skill and without bringing a sufficient number of producers within its orbit. I should like an assurance that the Resolution will be sufficient to cover all the transport charges that may emerge from any of the schemes. With regard to the compulsion of minorities, I should like the Minister to explain what he means by "a substantial majority," as that has an indirect but a pertinent bearing upon finance. The term which is used in Part I of the First Schedule of the Bill is, "A substantial representation of the producers," with regard to number and the quantity of produce. There are some of us on these benches who have a great aversion to the idea of compelling a minority. I do not think you will make this Bill a success unless you have the good will of the producers, and I question very much whether you are going about it in the right way by attempting to compel them.
I pass to the other question, which is of great importance, and which was dealt with by the Minister in his speech, namely, that of the liability of the producers. I have taken a considerable share in supporting co-operative effort in Scotland, and I have been disappointed, if I may say so, in the speeches which the right hon. Gentleman, the Minister of Agriculture, has delivered on this Marketing Bill by the absence of any commendation of co-operation or any undertaking that he intends to use the existing co-operative agencies for the purposes of the Bill. I do not want to put the matter too high. The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Perry), in the last discussion on this Bill, in answer to questions which were put to him, said he was prepared to wipe out of existence all the co-operative agencies if they stood in the way of this Bill. I do not believe that the Minister of Agriculture would endorse that state-
ment; I should rather hope that he would put it in this way, that he is prepared to utilise the co-operative agencies in so far as they exist as agents in promoting the schemes that he has in view in this Bill.
But I am not content with that. If he is to safeguard the liability of the producers, he must make it an inherent part of every scheme that it will be upon a co-operative basis. Imagine how a scheme of this sort with regard to any of the items in the Schedule would be regarded in Scotland, if the scheme is to be put to a Scotsman, of all people, as one of unlimited liability, or liability even to the extent shown in the Second Schedule of the Bill. What I think has been clearly proved by experience in Scotland is that producers may be willing enough to go into co-operative schemes where they know exactly beforehand what the extent of their liability would be in the event of loss or winding up, but they will be very chary of coming in where the liability is unlimited.
Apparently, according to the Schedule of the Bill, the greater the advantage they take of the scheme, the greater is the call that may be made upon them in the event of winding up. If each of these schemes were upon a co-operative basis, and each producer were asked to take so many shares in the society proportionate to the amount of business which he may do with the society, and then in the event of winding up his liability would be definitely limited to the uncalled capital of the shares which he holds, I suggest that that would be a very much better method than the method of the Bill. I part company at once with my hon. Friends above the Gangway who, in all innocence, would like to ask the State to relieve the producers of any losses on these undertakings. I think it would be impertinent that we should expect the State to relieve producers of any losses. I think, putting the proposition broadly, that every one of those schemes ought to be worked upon a sound commercial basis upon the same lines as any co-operative society of which we have experience; that, in the very first few years of the existence of one of those schemes, the directors should put so much to reserve against loss, so that, in the event of winding up, there will be a reserve fund upon which to draw.
With regard to machinery, which of course has an immediate impact upon the question of expense, no doubt the Bill is overloaded. I would omit Clause 7 and Clause 10 without any qualms whatever. Clause 7 sets up a consumers' committee consisting of a chairman and six members, and a committee of investigation consisting of a chairman and four members, and Clause 10 proposes to set up an agricultural marketing facilities committee for England and another one for Scotland. I say those committees are unnecessary. What about the Food Council which already exists? Are its functions not sufficient to cover any of the operations of those boards and to safeguard the interest of the consumer? As to the marketing facilities committees, there are Departments of Agriculture for England and Scotland which are quite capable of performing the functions which are proposed to be allotted to those new bodies. If the Government intend to push this Marketing Bill through, they will only do it if they unload the ship of many of the committees and commissions with which it is overburdened. They will also reduce the expense. There is power taken in Clause 14 to remunerate each of the chairmen of those committees. There will be some nice fat sobs under the Bill. If that is one of the minor objects of the Bill, I think it ought to be discarded. In Clause 14, not only the chairman is remunerated, but each member, and there are salaries of officers and the agents and the servants, all these without number.
If the intention is to bring the producer nearer to the consumer and thus abolish unnecessary middlemen, the Bill, on the contrary, proposes to replace what may be a superfluity of middlemen by an avalanche of officials, and the profits at present being absorbed by middlemen will be eclipsed by the expenses of all those numerous boards of officials. If producers are to get a greater share of profits, then obviously under this Bill it is the taxpayers who have to foot the Bill and not the producers. I say that each of the industries representing products dealt with by the various schemes ought to bear the expense of running their own concern so that the general taxpayer will have to contribute to a very minor degree. With regard to the proposal that there should be a com-
mission set up for each organisation, I suggest that that part of the Bill might well be dropped in order to save expense. One can foresee that this Commission, when set up, will busy itself in framing schemes which may never be required, in going round among the various producers and endeavouring to persuade them to come into the various schemes. What is more important than organisation of that sort is to use the existing organisation. I suggest one point to the Minister for his consideration. In connection with the promotion of co-operation and marketing, why ought he not to use the agricultural colleges which exist in Scotland? We have three of them doing first-class work, though not work in connection with co-operation and marketing.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Johnston): There is the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society.

Mr. SCOTT: I am aware of that society, but the Minister might do a great deal in promoting co-operation and marketing amongst the farmers by using the agricultural colleges. The money which it is proposed to spend in making grants to that particular society, or other commissions, would be better spent in education. I will give one classic example. In Denmark, before starting co-operation, they used money for education in co-operation. They did that for some ten years before they attempted to set up a single cooperative scheme. They put the horse before the cart, instead of doing what is proposed here—putting the cart before the horse. They educated the farmer in the matter of co-operation, and such education was widespread before the farmers were asked to co-operate. Some of the money which is to be earmarked under this Resolution should be used for education.
The Committee will notice that in the title of the Bill education is mentioned, but one searches the Bill in vain for any expenditure of money upon education. The Committee may have noticed recently two letters from Sir Horace Plunkett which have appeared in the "Times." They have particular reference to this Bill and to the question of co-operation. The Committee will remember the
splendid work which Sir Horace did in Ireland in promoting marketing and in setting up a system which was an example to the world. In that system there was no compulsion whatever. Nor is there any compulsion in Denmark. What they have relied upon there is entirely the spirit of good will. You must have the desire to co-operate before you can have success in co-operation. Accordingly, I can foresee much difficulty in making this Bill a success unless the Government take steps to secure that good will.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I think the speech to which we have just listened one of the most severe condemnations of the Resolution. It will be very interesting to notice exactly what action the hon. Member takes during the various stages of the Bill. I do not wish to go into the general question, but rather to ask the Government certain specific questions on this Resolution. The first part of the Resolution is very cumbrously worded:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session. … to encourage agricultural co-operation, research and education.
There is extraordinarily little in the marketing scheme that deals with the encouragement of co-operation, research or education. Why are those words in the Financial Resolution? Are they governed by the general phrase "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session"? Are those words there to cover some new Bill which is to promote real co-operation—which this Bill does not do—and to deal with the making of grants for research and education? There is nothing about those two objects in the Bill. If there were I should raise at once the question of the overlapping which must come about if the moneys under this Resolution are to be used for promoting research and education and the like—the overlapping between grants that can arise under this Bill and grants which will be made to the Ministry of Agriculture in England and the Department of Agriculture in Scotland by the Development Fund and the Empire Marketing Board.
I am certain that we shall get into inextricable financial confusion if we are to have wide Financial Resolutions and a series of grants under different Bills and under different headings and differ-
ent accounts to the Ministries for identical purposes. It is high time that there was a straightening out and consolidation of these grants so that we may know exactly what the Ministry of the Department of Agriculture are spending under headings of this kind. I question very much whether money under this Resolution is to be used for the improvement of marketing of a kind which is justified when the Government is cutting down the Empire Marketing Board and particularly its scientific activities, that is if the money is to continue to be paid out of the Empire Marketing Board Fund for the domestic purposes of the Ministry of Agriculture in the direction of marketing which may occasionally have some experimental value but not for the main intention of the grants, which is the development of real scientific research to deal with pests and various problems of agriculture. What is the research and what is the education that is covered by these words in this paragraph?
I want to ask a question in regard to paragraphs (a) and (b). When we were discussing the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill it was perpetually stressed by the Government that it was most undesirable to separate the money between England and Scotland, that though in practically every Act of Parliament and every act of administration the agreed ratio by which Scotland received money from the central Exchequer was in the proportion of eleven-eightieths to sixtynine-eightieths, we were told that in this matter it was essential that the fund should be treated as one and that there should be no particular allocation. Take a particular case into consideration. It is common knowledge that every day large consignments of milk come into London from one of the most celebrated Scottish farmers' co-operative societies. It seems to me that you will get immediately into inextricable confusion. I am not at all sure that it is desirable to have these two separate funds. There are English commodities sold in Scotland, especially in the spring, and there are periodical imports into England from Scotland. The attempt to organise the marketing and the pool and the board on strictly nationalist lines is probably a very retrograde step.
The next thing I want to ask is, what really is the meaning of and what is
the amount involved in paragraph (c) of the Resolution? In moving the Resolution the Minister made no attempt whatever to justify or explain that paragraph. We have had no estimate of what the possible liability under it may be. In the Bill it is very difficult to see exactly where this paragraph comes in. At any rate, to-day we are being asked to allow payments over and above the £500,000 and £125,000 to be made into the funds of any one of these boards or other bodies "of amounts equal to any sums from time to time written off the account of its assets." That may mean almost anything. It depends very largely on the system of accounting. Before any Financial Resolution in connection with any Bill is passed by this Committee the Minister ought at least to tell us what amount is involved. The maximum amount under each head should be stated in accordance with the regular practice of Parliament. Where that is not possible it is essential that the Minister should give an estimate of the total amount.
Similarly, in paragraphs (d) and (e) there are undefined liabilities. I think the last speaker made it clear that the whole machinery of the Bill will involve an entirely new set of officials, of paid chairmen, of organisations with their clerks and their offices and all the rest of it up and down the country, and inevitably it is all going to be on a very large scale. The right hon. Gentleman is going to attempt to form these many boards, covering practically the whole country and a wide range of products. He cannot justify his proposals on the ground that they are experimental. He has put into the Schedule of the Bill practically the whole of agricultural produce. When we translate into action, in relation to cereals, the proposals in paragraph (e), I presume that the Minister intends to set up elaborate organisations throughout the country so that every grower of oats will be brought into an oat pool. Similarly the wheat growers will be brought into a wheat pool, the barley growers into a barley pool, and so on.
All that means a very large amount of public money to expend in persuading people to come into organisations which, on present showing, they are very reluctant to enter. My Noble Friend the
Member for Basingstoke (Viscount Lymington) in an admirable speech put his finger on the real weakness of this Financial Resolution and one of the essential weaknesses of the Bill. On what ground does the Minister justify his assumption that even under paragraph (a) of the Resolution, £500,000 is going to be anything like the sort of sum necessary in maintaining and buttressing up one of these marketing boards in the present state of the world, particularly if he accepts the axiom of the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison) that Free Trade is to be inviolable? Given the principle of free imports into this country, given falls in world prices, given gluts in some of these commodities, can the Minister undertake that these boards which by Government action you are going to compel minorities to enter, will be guaranteed by this provision, the kind of assistance which will prevent the most frightful crashes? Is this the kind of guarantee which will be required in connection with all these various pools including milk, vegetables, meat, wool, and other commodities? I do not believe it for one moment.
When we allude to these points, the Minister says "potatoes." He always takes the most favourable example, as if you could argue from hops and potatoes to all these other articles. You cannot do so. It is in regard to the other commodities that the Minister is going to experience the greatest difficulty. But even as regards potatoes, if it is true that, on the average, we produce 90 per cent. of our total requirements in Great Britain, let us remember that there are years in which the bottom is knocked out of the potato market by a small glut in a country like Holland. That happens periodically—not frequently, but now and again. There is a glut for climatic reasons and, usually, it coincides with a glut of the home produce. We all know what happens in our market. However much you organise internal marketing, what happens when there is even a comparatively small glut, is that the price runs down to a far greater extent than would be expected from the extent of the glut. It is a common phenomenon of the law of supply and demand that a slight excess supply upsets the price to a fan- greater extent than would be expected, and vice versa a slight scarcity will suddenly
raise prices. Situated as we are, as regards the importation and marketing of agricultural produce in this country, the market is liable to be violently oscillated, particularly in regard to crops such as potatoes and the like. It is particularly in reference to those crops that you may get in one year a necessity for buttressing up one of these boards which will swallow up your £500,000 in a few weeks.
I believe that the financial consequences of the Government undertaking to impose this new plan of pool marketing, on the producers of this country, in the present state of the world and the extent of the financial responsibility, aye, and the moral responsibility involved have not been faced, and that the figures presented in this Resolution are quite illusory and are not founded upon a real comprehension of the nature and extent of the problem. If this Bill becomes law, in anything like its present form, we shall be faced with immense demands—demands fur greater than this Resolution indicates—upon the British taxpayer. The Chancellor's warning of last week will have been completely in vain, because the right hon. Gentleman the Minister will have thoughtlessly committed the House of Commons and the country to a policy, the end of which he has not begun to see.

Sir HARRY HOPE: The House of Commons is being asked to vote money for a very novel purpose, namely, to set up collectivist marketing organisations for agricultural produce. The foundation stone on which this proposal is based is compulsion, and I wish to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary one important question on that subject. They have both instanced potatoes as a product which can usefully be brought into the scope of this Measure. Is it proposed that if, say, 100 small growers with holdings of two acres each, in any district, vote for the setting up of a compulsory pool they are to have equal voting power with, perhaps, 50 or 100 large growers who are farming from 50 to 100 acres each. I know that, as regards Scottish agriculture, the main quantity of our potato supply is grown by large growers, and I think that system operates all over the country. Are 100 small growers, of two acres each, to have the same voting power? Are they to be considered of the same value as an equal number of growers of, say, 100 acres each, or are we to follow the method
applied in company law under which a man has voting strength according to the number of shares which he holds? I know that in Lincolnshire, which provides the chief competition against Scottish potatoes in the London market, there are growers who farm 500 acres or 1,000 acres. These are business men, able to conduct their businesses in every respect. Are they to be considered as having only the same voting strength as small growers?
I submit that in the First Schedule to the Bill the phrase, "substantially representative of the persons who produce" should be more carefully worded, and I ask the Under-Secretary to give us some explanation of what the words "substantially representative" mean. If this scheme is to be a success, it is necessary to win the support and confidence of the producers, and if large farmers, whether in Scotland or England, are to be in a position of being out-voted by large numbers of smallholders on a matter affecting their business in this way, it will be a retrograde step as regards the conduct of agriculture. I think that the Minister of Agriculture and the Under-Secretary of State hardly understand what they are proposing. They say that there is to be a cattle or sheep pool, if a majority of persons "substantially representative" of the producers desire such a pool, and that compulsion is to be put upon everybody else to join it. Consider what happens. If a man is under compulsion only to sell his cattle or sheep when the pool tells him to do so, what effect is that going to have in a country like ours? We have changes in the weather, sometimes causing droughts in counties or in parts of counties, which would prevent the farmer keeping his cattle until the time when the pool tells him he is to market them. It is essential that producers of stock shall have power to market their stock when the supply of food, whether of roots in winter or of pasture in summer, necessitates them doing so.
If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to benefit the agricultural industry, he ought to cut compulsion out of the Measure altogether. If he were to devote this money to the encouragement of co-operation, I have no doubt that co-operation would be taken up by the men who want it, and that they would make a success of it. But to put compulsion upon potato growers, who can manage their own business far better than any
officials could do it for them, or upon stock-raisers to prevent them marketing their stock at the time when nature demands that they should market it, is taking the worst possible step for the industry. Therefore, I ask the Minister, respectfully and earnestly, if he cannot strike compulsion out of the Measure altogether, to limit the compulsion to such an extent that those practical difficulties and hardships which I have indicated will not arise.

Major MUIRHEAD: Several speakers on this side of the Committee have raised a question which we consider vital, and that is the necessity—in our view the absolute necessity—of coupling with the provisions of this Bill some form of restriction on foreign imports. That point has been adequately stated, and I do not propose to deal with it any further at this stage. After all, the fact that one thinks that a Measure would be very much better if coupled with something else does not prevent one considering the actual Measure itself. One may argue that a judicious marriage produces the happiest results, but that is no reason for condemning out of hand the condition of singleness. I myself wish to take the Measure as it stands, without considering how such additions as the control of foreign imports might improve it, and to deal with one or two points arising on the terms of the Bill itself. The Minister cannot complain at the reception which this Measure received from the House on Second Reading. Although we pressed our points, and shall continue to press them, with regard to foreign countries, there is a disposition on this side of the Committee to consider the Bill as fairly as we can, and to put our finger, if possible, on any particular merits which it may possess.
When it comes to a question of a certain sum of money being voted to a certain object, it is no good taking out the plums and saying, "Here is a good thing, and there is a good thing," and putting all the goods things together and saying, "Surely these are worth £500,000." It is possible that in the Bill there may be certain provisions which not only diminish the goodness of the Bill, but nullify any goodness that it may possess. Therefore, when we are considering a Bill which consists of good and bad things, it is no good saying that the good things are
worth the money if the bad things knock all the goodness into the next world. A great deal of play has been made with the argument that, after all, this is only an enabling Bill, and that it will only be put into operation if the producers want it. On the surface there appears to be a certain merit behind that argument. We have to consider not merely the starting of the operations under the Bill, but what happens when the operations have been started.
Many of us on this side have a great fear of the Ministerial powers under this Bill which perhaps—I emphasise perhaps—will not operate very largely, or at all events very obviously, when the starting of the schemes is considered, but which can undoubtedly operate after the schemes have been put into effect. Let me take four points. First, there is that phrase "substantial representation," the inadequacy and unsatisfactory nature of which has already been discussed a great deal, and the Minister ought not to want it further impressed upon him. As long as it remains, I shall not be satisfied with the Bill, because the definition of the term and its application are to be left to Ministerial wisdom or folly, according to the particular Minister of Agriculture who will occupy the position. My second point is that Clause 2, Subsection (1), enables the Minister to put in his own nominees during the first 12 months of the scheme. That is a very insidious suggestion. It may seem to be very kind of the Minister to help the thing along in its infancy, and I cannot help thinking that when the right hon. Gentleman framed those words, he must have been mindful of the phrase that "the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world." He must have felt that if he could control the direction of the scheme during the first 12 months, Ministerial stock would be very high during its continuance.
The third point is in regard to Clause 7, Sub-section (4), under which, if nothing happens during the progress of the scheme, the Minister may take very drastic powers. He may suggest Amendments, and if they are not agreed to by the Board, he may step in and with autocratic powers reconstruct the Board with his own nominees. There is nothing to stop him, as far as I can see, at one
fell swoop altering the entire construction of the Board, the entire organisation of the scheme, and the nature of the whole proceedings. We are being asked to vote money for a certain purpose where the Minister will have autocratic powers to alter the whole nature of the scheme after it has started. My fourth point relates to Clause 13, Subsection (1), which contains a sentence which sounds very glib. It is:
The Minister shall take such steps as he thinks fit to further the consideration of the scheme by producers with a view to the submission thereof, subject to such modifications (if any) as may be expedient, for his approval under this Act.
That is very suave language, but it is very glib. It is the sort of language which the executioner in days gone by might have used to his victim in the torture chamber when he was about to commence his persuasive operations. There is a good deal of hidden danger in regard to ministerial interference in that rather long drawn out, and on the surface, rather suave sentence. I hope that by these four points I have emphasised the real inherent danger in the scheme. This money is to be used for schemes after they have been started, and we on this side cannot vote that money until we are satisfied that some alteration will be made in the Bill to remove the fear which we have of ministerial interference.
There is an absolute necessity of getting co-operation between all sides and interests. I have found that in canvassing opinion in my constituency. There is a fear—perhaps a justifiable fear—that this Bill is to be used as a sort of weapon to combine producers against what may be called the trade. Reference to other interests is certainly mentioned in the Bill, but it is rather stowed away. There is a feeling that by bringing forward this Bill the Minister of Agriculture is, so to speak, going back to some of his War-time activities; he is introducing compulsory service and is going to set up a Ministry of Munitions in order to forge a gigantic weapon to put into the hands of the producers so that they may beat down the trade interest. It is lamentable if that opinion gets abroad. In order that the Bill may be implemented, there ought to be the fullest means of co-operation between the producers and the general trade. However willing we may be to consider the Bill and its merits, the Minister
will get no constructive assistance from this side unless he satisfies us in regard to some of the dangers I have tried to outline.

Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: I listened with much interest to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who introduced this Money Resolution, and I only regret that he has so few Members of his party to support him during the Debate. Indeed, the paucity of numbers behind him reflects the interest of the Labour party in the welfare of the oldest industry in the country. The Bill which is governed by this Resolution incorporates certain principles which appeal to Members on various sides of the Committee. The principle of education and scientific research will particularly appeal to Members on the Opposition benches, while the principle of co-operative effort will appeal to all those who wish to see a comprehensive marketing scheme developed. I was informed the other day that the country produced something like £200,000,000 worth of produce, and that it cost £280,000,000 to market it. These figures show to what extent the agriculturists can be helped by a scientific and comprehensive enabling Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Guinness) pointed out, however, organisation alone is not sufficient to help an industry unless that industry has a secure market.
The principle to which so many of us object in this Bill is the principle of compulsion, for it is entirely foreign to the characteristics of our race, and is a principle which thoughout the centuries we have always combated. Our national characteristic has always been to fight for the rights of individual liberty and freedom. For this reason, I object strongly to the Bill. One of the great mistakes in the introduction of this principle is that it will penalise good marketing. I once heard a speech in this House by the late Lord Melchett in which he pointed out the futility of trying to help industry by lowering the efficiency of efficient units to the average efficiency of units that were not so good. The introduction of the compulsory principle in this Bill will, instead of helping the industry, only reduce the efficiency of the really efficient producers. I heard not long ago from a man who was engaged in chicken farming in one of the southern
counties that he had tried co-operative methods, but that he had been forced to abandon them because he found that he could do infinitely better by marketing his own goods. On another occasion I heard of a smallholder who had a farm of 37 acres only, and whose efficiency was so great that he paid some £1,500 a year in wages. As he pointed out, his business entirely depended upon his being able to market his produce in his own way, and if anything in the nature of compulsion were applied to his business, it would unquestionably so penalise him that he would probably be unable to produce as efficiently as he has been producing during the last few years.
6.0 p.m.
There is a point in the Money Resolution which affects Scotland, and I really do not see why Scotland should receive this preferential treatment. Why should not the eastern counties, which are probably the most adversely affected by the agricultural depression, receive preferential treatment? Better still, why should not preferential treatment be accorded to the counties of Somerset, Devon and Cornwall? It is true that the sum named in the Money Resolution is not a very large one, but after the grave warning of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week the Government would do wisely to save their pence in order to have the necessary pounds to meet the deficit with which the Chancellor will be faced the month after next. This is an example of the sort of coercive legislation that this country can expect under the tyrannical heel of a Socialist Government, and I, for one, propose to vote against the Resolution.

Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: I was present to hear the opening remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, but I am not clear as to how far he found himself in sympathy with the Amendment of the Noble Lord as regards the expenses of winding-up boards. The right hon. Gentleman devoted some few minutes to that particular subject, and I understood him to say it was a point he was willing to deal with in Committee, but I would like to ask here and now if he will give an undertaking that he will incorporate an Amendment which will make it possible to contribute out of the fund towards the winding-up expenses of the boards. I rather gather from the right hon. Mem-
ber that that is what he had in mind, and if he can give us such an assurance it will be a satisfaction to us on these benches. The position in regard to the winding-up of boards is rather a curious one. In Clause 17, Sub-section (5, c), we find that a society or governing body is exempt from liability except as a registered producer. If the society is not a registered producer, apparently it has no liability at all; the whole liability will fall upon the farmer producers. This is confirmed by the Second Schedule, which in paragraph 7 states that a registered producer is liable to contribute to the payment of the debts and liabilities of the board and the costs and expenses of winding-up in proportion to the aggregate amount of the sums paid or payable to him in respect of the sale of the regulated product during the period of the preceding year. I suggest to the Government that there is a curious wording. In the first part of it, the "liabilities" of boards are referred to, and in the last paragraph of that section he will find that contribution by the farmer producers is to be made to the "assets." I do not know whether there is any subtle distinction in the phraseology, and I should be glad if whoever is going to reply will clear up that point.
As regards the liability on the part of producers to pay a levy towards the cost of winding-up boards, the Committee must bear in mind that this is a great experiment, and there are bound to be mistakes. It is the intention, no doubt, to assist producers, but nothing could be more discouraging to them in the early stages of such an experiment than that they should find themselves let in for the unsuccessful trading liabilities of boards which were set up with the object of helping them. Some of the producers will have come into the scheme only under compulsion. Their freedom to deal with their products is to be taken away from them. They will be allowed to sell them only through the agency of one of these boards, and yet when this board makes mistakes and, through trading inefficiently, incurs heavy losses, the unwilling producer is to be compelled to make them good.
There are two small points on which I wish to ask the Minister questions. In Clause 9, Sub-section (5), it will be
found that sums which are irrecoverable may be written off the assets of the Fund. Such sums are to be repaid by the Treasury to the Fund. Assuming that the whole of the £500,000 had passed from the Treasury to the Fund, and that then the Fund found it necessary to write off a certain amount, would the Treasury be liable to contribute a further sum over and above the £500,000? Clause 11, dealing with short-term loans, which are to be free of interest for two years, states that those loans shall be renewable on the recommendation of the Agricultural Marketing Facilities Committee. If the Committee permit their renewal, are these loans to be renewed without interest? Clause 12, which deals with long-term loans, limits them to £100,000 for England. I wish to know for what period of time these long-term loans are to be granted, what is the provision for interest, and whether the interest is to include a payment towards a Sinking Fund in order to wipe out the loan within a term of years?
Coming to the wider aspect of the problem, I wish to deal with the question of the adequacy or inadequacy of this amount of £500,000 to carry out the purposes of the Bill. The Minister has told us that in his view the amount asked for was modest in view of the magnitude of the scope of the Bill. The real point is whether this £500,000 is adequate to finance the operations of the boards which are to be set up? Will the money be expended merely on what I may call the machinery of the boards? It appears that the bulk of the money will undoubtedly go in the payment of salaries. There would be the expense of setting up the board—officers will have to be paid, and directors also; then there will be the payment for the members of the Consumers' Committee—apparently they will have to be paid; there will be the salaries and expenses of the Committee of Investigation; there will be also the salaries and expenses of the Agricultural Marketing Facilities Committee; and, in addition, there is to be a provision for short-term loans and long-term loans. It appears that the larger part of this £500,000 will be expended on salaries. How will that help agriculture? The Minister's estimate that £40,000 would be adequate must surely be under the mark.
The Minister has told us this £500,000 is a gift to agriculture. If the whole of it, or a large part of it, is to be absorbed by salaries, I can hardly think agriculture will think much of the right hon. Gentleman's generous gift. At all events it is not the form of gift for which agriculture is asking at the present time. There are plenty of other ways in which agriculture could be much more effectually assisted. What agriculture does ask for is to be given a fair share in our home market. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the boards are to be self-supporting institutions. I ask the Committee to consider what would happen if a board were set up for the whole country to deal with either potatoes or milk. It would be an undertaking of considerable magnitude. How is the board to start its trading operations? The right hon. Gentleman says it would go to the bank. It is quite legitimate for trading concerns to go to the bank, but it is not legitimate or wise for any trading concern to start without some capital of its own. What is to happen if a heavy loss is made in the early years? There is no capital to fall back upon, and a levy will have to be made upon the farmer producers.
I turn to another aspect of the Bill. Surely a Measure which will put out of business a very large section of the community should provide some means of compensation for those who are deprived of their livelihood. It is the fashion to-day to decry middlemen, but they are no better and no worse than any other sections of the community. The middleman is performing a service of very great importance to the community. Is he to be put out of business at the will of a local board dealing with a regulated product? Is an auctioneer who has built up a business over a number of years, who has proper equipment in a cattle market, to lose the whole of his business at the whim of some local board which decides that in future no cattle, pigs, sheep or horses may be sold through any agency but its own? No provision has been made for compensation in such a case, and apparently there is to be none. We may ask whether the board will proceed, as presumably it will, on the lines of a co-operative society?
Has the history of co-operative societies in agriculture been a success? We know
of large co-operative societies which have embarked upon farming and have sold their produce direct to the consumer, with the elimination of all middlemen's profits, but, in spite of that, have been a hopeless failure and have made very heavy losses. What the Bill is going to do is to compel a producing industry to take upon its shoulders the risk of trade. The producer should confine himself to producing unless he says voluntarily, "I am prepared to shoulder all the risks and liabilities of trade in addition to my own risks as a producer." The State has no business to compel him to shoulder heavy trade risks while at the same time putting out of business those who have spent their lives in acquiring a knowledge of trading conditions. For the reasons given I cannot think the Bill or the Money Resolution attached to it is justified, and I cannot believe the right hon. Gentleman can really be sincere in standing at that Box and telling us that £500,000 is adequate to carry out the great schemes which undoubtedly he has in mind. Unless he is prepared to make a very big alteration in his scheme I cannot believe there is any hope of success for it.

Captain GUNSTON: I rise with the object of calling attention to the poultry industry as it will be affected by this Measure, but before doing so I must express my fears regarding this Bill after the speech we heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week, because if he is going to limit the expenditure of his Parliamentary children then it is quite obvious that he will chiefly have his eye on his prodigal son, the Minister of Agriculture. I was a little alarmed to-day when I saw the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) come into the House, because he must have known, as the prodigal father, that the Minister in charge of this Bill is one who has spent the largest sum of public money in the shortest space of time. I hope attention will be paid to what has been said by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Perry), who is one of the experts in the Co-operative Movement, and no doubt he will be able to give the Minister some very valuable advice when we reach the Committee stage of this Measure. My view is that this Bill will penalise the most progressive section of the agricultural industry. Hon.
Members opposite are aware that this industry has been built up mostly by the efforts of small men. Reference has been made to the question of education in agriculture, but I think hon. Members opposite will agree that it was not any Minister who was responsible for promoting education in agriculture. It was the County Councils Association that first set up education committees in the agricultural industry.
Co-operation among egg producers has enabled them to meet the keen foreign competition in imported eggs, and these producers have been able to meet the competition of large importations of eggs from Holland and Denmark. This has been done by the English agricultural industry increasing largely its supply of eggs. There has been a tremendous increase in the number of eggs laid by English hens during the last 20 years. Scientific research in agriculture has been applied in a very practical way to farming in the past, but it is not being applied so much to-day to egg and poultry production. The men engaged in this section of agriculture have created a great industry which I believe is far greater in value than all the cereal production which is likely to be effected by the marketing part of the industry—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being present—

Captain GUNSTON: The men who have built up the egg and poultry section of the agricultural industry have established their own co-operative arrangements, but, apart from that, many of them have established connections in the large towns. I know cases in ordinary markets to which the good-class eggs are sent where they get higher prices than the eggs bearing the national mark. I agree that the national marking of eggs has been useful in obtaining a higher price, but the producers for whom I am speaking are afraid that if you compel them to come into a national scheme they will suffer because, at the present time, they are getting twopence per dozen more for their eggs than they would obtain if they were obliged to sell under the national mark scheme. As the Bill stands it is laid down that all producers must sell under the national mark
scheme, and although the men whose cause I am pleading have been pioneers in this industry, if they are compelled to come under the national scheme they will lose twopence per dozen on their sale, which means a very great deal to them.

The CHAIRMAN (Sir Robert Young): The hon. and gallant Member does not appear to me to be confining his remarks to the Resolution, and the question he is raising does not arise.

Captain GUNSTON: The Minister in charge of the Bill referred to the Schedule and mentioned the limitation of one year. I was going to point out that in addition to compelling these producers to lose money to the extent of twopence per dozen by coming under the scheme, this Bill does not protect them only to the extent of one year, and then they would become liable as regards their produce to sell under the scheme provided by the Bill. The agricultural industry needs some assurance that under this Bill you are not going to penalise men who by their own efforts—

The CHAIRMAN: That argument would be in order in discussing the Bill, but the argument that producers are being penalised to the extent of twopence a dozen in regard to egg production does not arise on this Resolution.

Captain GUNSTON: I ask the Minister of Agriculture to give an assurance that Clause 7 will be applied only for one year and I hope he will extend some protection to that section of the agricultural industry to which I have referred.

Mr. CHRISTIE: The more serious part of this Bill seems to me the vast number of officials who will be appointed under its provisions, and I do not think such appointments are necessary. I think some estimate should be drawn up as to the amount of money that is going to be spent on the assistance which it is claimed will be given to hop growers. We ought, as far as possible, to see that no more public money is spent on the appointment of officials, because the whole of this business can be carried on without costing the agricultural industry a single penny. The proposals of the Measure are very problematical. We have been informed, as far as the potato industry is concerned, that if 15 per
cent. of imported potatoes could have been kept off the market, the price to the English grower would have been maintained at £5 per ton instead of being somewhere in the region of £1 per ton. It seems to me that to go to the expense of appointing a lot of officials and committees to create an artificial market in the potato industry would be a terrible waste of public money. Even if by limiting the output of potatoes, which is the object of this Bill, the price can be forced up to £5 a ton, unless at the same time an effort is made to check the foreign imports into this country, the only result will be that foreign potatoes will come in competition with the home product and the higher price of the home grown produce will not be maintained. Therefore as far as potatoes are concerned, the expenditure proposed under this Bill would be absolutely wasted.
When we come to deal with soft fruit, we find the same thing. Unless you can limit the importation of soft fruit, it is perfectly impossible to increase the price of the home products to any extent which would be of the slightest use to the producer. The efforts to be made under this Bill would not only be very costly, but they would end in complete failure unless accompanied by a limitation of imports. That would also be true in regard to milk, which is said to be one of the agricultural products which this Bill would assist. It is argued that the trouble in the milk industry is not the desire for a marketing scheme, but the desire for advertisement, and that one of the advantages of this Bill would be to enable milk producers to advertise more. The reason why our present consumption of milk is so low is not so much the fact that we do not advertise it, but the fact that the public are very nervous as to its quality, and I believe that the first way in which the milk industry should be helped is by doing something to placate the hostility of the medical profession towards the unfortunate dairy farmer. They are the people who are responsible for the very low consumption of milk in this country, and so long as they are allowed to go about making speeches, like that of a Noble Lord the other day in another place, about the quality and purity of our milk supplies, it seems to me that a Measure of this sort is not of the slightest use. Finally, I cannot help thinking that
the whole of this expenditure is aimed in the wrong direction, because I imagine that, if these marketing boards are set up, they will be set up, not with a view to the actual retailing of the produce, but rather with a view to the question of distribution to the retailers. In my belief the intermediate people in the agricultural markets are not the people who are gaining an unfair advantage. The commission salesmen and the auctioneers are not taking—

The CHAIRMAN: I am at a loss to understand how this question has arisen. The question before the Committee is that of the money which is to be voted under this Resolution for the purposes stated in the Resolution. The Bill itself will come up for consideration in due course, and, if any special regulations or orders are to be made, they can then be discussed. At present, however, the discussion of such matters is not in order.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I should like to draw your attention, Sir Robert, to the fact that on the Second Reading we were only given a very limited time for discussion, and I think it was understood, in view of that fact, that ample discussion would be allowed on the Money Resolution.

The CHAIRMAN: If there was an understanding of that kind, of course I must allow the discussion to proceed, if it is in order, but really the whole thing is out of order. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have been making speeches on this Money Resolution in which they have gone into all sorts of details connected with the Bill and matters arising out of them, but all that we are concerned with now is the Money Resolution.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I submit that hon. Members who have spoken from the opposite benches have been allowed a very wide discussion on various matters, and, as they were allowed to go on, I suggest that we should be allowed to do likewise.

The CHAIRMAN: If the discussion has been out of order for three hours, that is no reason why it should continue to be out of order.

Mr. CHRISTIE: I quite see the justice of your Ruling, Sir Robert, but what I was trying to do was to show
the importance of avoiding waste of public money in financing a scheme which was aimed at the wrong person, and that seemed to me to be, at any rate to some extent, in order. I was only trying to suggest that the people from whom the producer was suffering were not people like the commission salesman and the auctioneer, but the retailer. I will not, however, pursue the point any further. Of course, we cannot be expected to do very much at this stage, but I hope that at any rate, in Committee, the Minister will be able to see his way to reduce to some extent this large number of committees and officials, and to ensure that this money which is to be provided by the impoverished taxpayer shall, at any rate for the most part, come down to the unfortunate producer, and shall not be spent in salaries for an increased number of officials.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: I should like to say, as others have said, a word of congratulation to the Minister on the fact that he is not asking in this Resolution for an extravagant amount of money. Certainly, as compared with the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill and the other legislation which is being brought forward, this amount is a very modest one. It is not, however, the amount that we have to criticise and look into; if the amount is not going to be of any use, and is not going to carry out the object of the Resolution, it will be wasted whether it be small or large. Our objection to the Bill is that it is powerless because there is no control of similar imports from abroad, and that, until such control is established, it will not work. I am very much in favour of better marketing such as is attempted by this Bill—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member, again, is discussing the Bill. I must draw attention to the fact that this money is required for the purpose of making loans to boards and administering schemes under the Act; for the payment of expenses in Scotland, including remuneration to the chairman and other members, and the secretary, officers, agents and servants, of any commission or committee constituted under the Act; and also for the purpose of meeting the expenses of an Agricultural Marketing Reorganisation Commission in Scotland.
We cannot discuss, under this Resolution, the question whether there should be control of imports.

Viscount WOLMER: On a point of Order. Is not my hon. and gallant Friend entitled to argue that, so long as imports are not dealt with, the whole of this money is being wasted, because Parliament is being asked to vote £500,000 under conditions which will inevitably lead to the loss of that money; and that, unless the Bill is amended in the sense that he suggests, the money will be thrown away?

The CHAIRMAN: No. It would be perfectly in order to make a statement of that kind and pass on, but we cannot discuss the whole question of whether there ought to be control of imports or not. It so happens that there appears at the moment to be nobody on the other side who is prepared to take up that point, but there might be later on.

Brigadier-General BROWN: I will not refer to that point again. I notice that the Resolution confers powers upon boards and other bodies, and provides them with money. These powers are surely excessive, because they can deprive the registered producer, as soon as he has joined, of control of his own money. He will have nothing to say about the financial liabilities into which these boards may get him, and, as far as I can see, these boards, under Clause 5 of the Bill, can do a great many things—they may pay compensation, they may lend money, they may guarantee payments, they may start debentures, and so forth; and, while the producer may lose his money, he has no control over the appointment of these boards, because it is laid down that the Minister, if necessary, can replace a board by persons nominated by himself. There is no appeal, as far as I can see, against the action of the boards. I submit that very few registered producers will be got to join unless these conditions are very much altered, and that is one of the reasons why I think that this expenditure will be on wrong lines and wasteful.
The Resolution says that among the objects of this expenditure is the encouragement of agricultural co-operation, research and education, but I should like to ask the Minister where in the Bill is there any encouragement of research
and education? If money is to be provided for the encouragement of research and education, surely it would be better to finance the county education committees, Rothamsted, the Milk Research Institute at Shinfield, and so forth, which need money and are already doing this research, rather than to start another scheme, mixed up with marketing, to do the same things which are being done better at the present time. I cannot see how the Bill does anything except encourage co-operative societies to spend money on schemes, whether good or bad, to the disadvantage of agricultural research and education.
Further, Sub-section (5) of Clause 9 of the Bill provides for the payment of money which can be written off. I may be wrong, and perhaps I have read this provision differently from some of my hon. Friends, but I gather that the money thus provided for is not included in the £500,000 for England or the £125,000 for Scotland, but is an extra amount. The Sub-section says:
If, in the opinion of the Treasury, a sum representing the whole or any part of the principal of any such loan as aforesaid is not likely to be recovered, the Treasury may direct that that sum shall be written off;
and, later on, that
there may, in addition to the sums hereinbefore mentioned, be paid into the fund out of moneys provided by Parliament an amount equal to the sum so written off.
The Resolution is wonderfully worded, and I want to know what it means. I suppose that the provision in Clause 9 of the Bill, to which I have just referred, is not covered by the money that we are now being asked to grant, but is extra, and, if so, I think it is bad business that these boards can be allowed to default, write off wasting assets, and then recover the money straight away from the Treasury in order to keep themselves going. It is nothing more or less than a dole to these boards.
The Resolution also refers to the remuneration of the chairman, secretary, officers, agents and servants of any commission or committee constituted under the Act. Why is there no limiting provision in that case? How much is it going to cost, and how is it possible to find out from the Resolution what the expenses will really be? This is one of the worst drawn Financial Resolutions
that I have ever seen. I cannot understand it, and I am sure that the Minister cannot tell how much he is going to spend under it. How many boards, committees, and commissions are there to be, what are they going to consist of, and how much is to be paid in salaries? There is nothing except a vague provision as to power to draw money from time to time. Like other Socialist proposals, the Bill asks for a blank cheque, and I think we have no right to pass Money Resolutions of this sort without having more details. While, however, these matters can be put on a much more businesslike footing than seems to be the ease in this Resolution, the real objection to the Bill, which I am not allowed to go into, is that it will never work while imported foreign articles are allowed to come in and compete with our own produce in our own market without any control or regulation whatever.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: My objection to this Resolution is that it is a gigantic experiment. It might be said that in some cases experiments are justified, but in this case I do not think it can be justified at all, because we have previous experience. It is not very long since the House had to pass a Resolution to find a sum of not less than £40,000 to pay for an experiment which had already been tried and proved a failure with regard to the marketing of agricultural produce, so that we have that as an assurance that this is a vast experiment which is hound to be a failure. In addition to that, until there is some control of the imported article, this is bound to be a failure from that cause alone. What I am now going to say may appear paradoxical when I have been complaining against this, and saying I am not in favour of this grant for experimental purposes. Unlike the Minister and many others who have spoken from these benches, I do not think the sum is adequate for the purposes proposed. If you are going to organise the marketing of the various articles that are mentioned in the Bill, the sum that is asked for will be absolutely insufficient. The Minister himself stated that there was no less than £56,000,000 worth of milk. That is one article only. How is this sum to be sufficient to organise the sale of £56,000,000 worth of a product? It is absolutely inadequate. Here I should like to make a correction of a statement that
the Minister made, by a slip I should imagine, but a very serious one. He said £59,000,000 worth of milk was produced in this country in a year and £50,000,000 worth was consumed as liquid milk. That is not correct. 1,100,000 gallons of milk are produced of which 600,000 gallons only are consumed as liquid milk.
Another objection I have to the loan is this. The purpose of it is really to extract from agriculturists money which they in many cases have not, and in other cases can very ill afford for this object, because it is not only Government money which this will spend. It is going to compel from the industry, from agriculturists themselves, the provision of certain money for this experiment of collective and organised marketing. That is an object with which I certainly cannot agree, because there is not only the question of providing money for capitalising the scheme, but of providing for the great amount of loss which will take place. That, again, is a hardship to the industry itself. Then a certain amount of money is to be given in the form of loans. Many people, when they talk about loans, assume that they are gifts. They are nothing of the sort. Under another Bill loans that were made did prove, to the extent of 80 per cent., to be gifts, but in this case they are supposed to return the loans that are made to them. That is inflicting another liability upon the industry which it cannot possibly stand. I object to it on this ground.
Again, some of this money is to pay commissioners, officers, servants and agents. Undoubtedly these men are not going to give their services. They will have to be paid, and they will be adequately paid, but who is to pay for them? This money will not be sufficient. A certain amount of it will have to come from the industry itself to provide for these parasites upon the industry. You replace a certain number of men who are now marketing their articles very successfully and receiving the benefit of their marketing themselves, which will be an injury to them, though perhaps an advantage to those who are not satisfactory in their marketing arrangements and ability. It will have the effect of levelling down instead of levelling up, and that will be a very great objection to the Bill. I object to paying for something with which I do not agree, and
I do not agree with the powers that are being given to these commissioners. They are to be allowed to examine the accounts of the producers, not for legal, but for inquisitorial purposes, and that is something to which I object very strongly. I hope I shall never be tempted to vote for money being paid to commissioners for services of that description. Again, what is the cost of organisation to be? No one can say. We are contributing something—not a great deal—towards the enormous cost of organisation which you place upon the industry. That is to replace an organisation which may not be perfect to-day, but which still, in the circumstances, and in the difficulties of a free market, is doing very much better than this organisation will do in the future.
This money is to be used as a subsidy. No one has said more about the iniquities of subsidies from their point of view than hon. Members opposite, and the Minister has himself repeatedly refused to give any subsidy to agriculture. On this occasion he is keeping his word, but if the Bill is to be successful, and raise the price of the article for the producers at home, it is really going to be a subsidy to those people who are producing goods elsewhere and bringing them into this country and competing against ours. I will never support a Measure which will subsidise those outside the country, who do not have to undertake the responsibility which our own producers have to, as against our producers here. I hope some help will be given to the industry in a different form from this, or it will fail, but if the money is to be spent, the subsidy should go to those who need it in this country and not to those who are their opponents and competitors abroad.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I have listened to several speeches from various parts of the Committee, and I hope hon. Members will forgive me if I do not criticise all the details in some of those speeches. This is a Financial Resolution in the name of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The Committee has been discussing the Motion for something over three hours, and I believe at no part of that time has the hon. Gentleman, for practical purposes, been sitting on the
Front Bench. It is also interesting to realise that we are being asked to vote a sum of money, not merely £500,000, as is defined, for certain purposes in England, but for a considerable addition to that money for Scotland, with added powers, as I understand it, for various other vague and indefinite sums. For that, if for no other reason, I think it is a highly disgraceful episode in the annals of the House of Commons that, when we are voting a Financial Resolution of this kind, for colossal and enormous sums of money, the Committee should be deliberately flouted and insulted by the entire absence of the representatives of the Treasury. I do not wish to run down the Minister of Agriculture, and his capacity for dealing with finance. I will leave that for others to deal with. I do not wish to say anything about the financial capacity for dealing with the Amendment either of the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary for Scotland. I have no doubt that they have both looked after the Scottish people exceedingly well, as you can see in the Resolution, but on a Resolution of this kind we ought to be able to get clear and definite information from the Treasury as to how they propose to administer its details.
7.0 p.m.
The Minister told us he was going to set up a certain number of committees. Over how many different sections of the agricultural industry does he propose to extend the £500,000? I know he has very little knowledge of these matters, but presumably he has some information from his Department. Does he intend that the various commissions that he is setting up should be on a county or on a wider basis, and could he give some sort of estimate as to the number of committees and how they will be placed in an area? I should like to ask him to give a simple illustration as to how he proposes to use this money, we will say, in dealing with any one particular crop. He informed us that he intended to set up a marketing commission. He intended also to set up various investigating committees of producers. Are they for wide or for narrow areas? Take potatoes, with which they will have to deal. Unless the committees are to be very small and narrow bodies, you must have on them men of great experience if they are to investigate the whole of, say, England and Wales as one area. Again, you have your consumers'
committee. When you take your committees of investigation, your consumers' committee, your reorganising commission, and your marketing commission, how are you to divide this sum among these various sections and committees? It is perfectly monstrous on a Motion of this nature, which has enormous difficulties of a financial character, on which Member after Member has put various questions to the Minister as to how he proposes to use its finance, that we have had no answer of any kind. No interest has been taken in this question so far as the Treasury are concerned, and I hope that we, on this side of the House, will vote against this Financial Resolution and do all in our power to prevent the taxpayers having to find the money for a Bill, which will be purely wasteful in its administration and which has no connection with any desire to administer the country in a better or more sensible way, but which, as is proved clearly by the wording of the Resolution, is merely the outcome of a desire to set up endless numbers of officials and committees, who will waste the substance of the nation when it is our primary duty to conserve our means and prevent the imposition of additional taxation by any such kind of stupid waste.

Viscount WOLMER: I do not rise to move the Amendment standing in my name, as I understand it is likely to be out of order, but to call the attention of the Minister to the point with which that Amendment attempts to deal. Under the Resolution as at present worded, the Minister is precluded from rendering any assistance in the event of any marketing board going into liquidation. Under the Bill, if a marketing board goes bank-rupt, the farmers have to put their hands in their pockets and in certain proportions pay the entire cost. I would draw the attention of the Minister to the way that is bound to strike the agricultural community. In the first place, under Clause 13 of the Bill, the Minister is instituting Reorganisation Commissions, which will be charged with the duty of propounding new schemes, which will be brought to the attention of the farmers by the Minister, and, through his eloquence and that of the Reorganisation Commission, farmers may be induced to come into a marketing scheme. When the
marketing scheme goes bankrupt, the Minister will be precluded under this Resolution from giving a single farthing towards helping the farmers out of the mess into which he and his Reorganisation Commission may have led them. Under Clause 4, the Minister takes power to coerce any farmer who has not been convinced by the eloquence of the Reorganisation Commission. Farmers who are in a minority may, therefore, be forced into a marketing scheme, in which they never believed, and, when it goes bankrupt, they and their colleagues will be charged with the entire expense. That will be regarded as a very grave injustice by farmers.
Under Clause 7, the Minister takes power, in the event of his investigation committee reporting that certain action of a board is not in the public interest, to reconstitute the board himself. He may displace all the old members of the marketing board and put in nominees of his own choosing, and that board appointed by him will have complete control of the funds of the co-operative society. That board of the Minister may lead the organisation into bankruptcy yet, under this Resolution, the Minister will be precluded from giving a single farthing to help the unfortunate farmers, who will be required to pay every penny of the loss incurred, although it may have been due to decisions of a board forced upon them by the Minister. In those circumstances, I would point out that as long as that is possible under the Bill—I do not say it is likely to happen—the Minister cannot really hope to get the good will of farmers towards this Bill. I am sure he is anxious as I am to get the good will of farmers behind anything which is passed by this House. I appeal to him, therefore, whether he cannot do something to meet the point I have stressed. If the Financial Resolution stands in its present form and the Bill is not amended in this respect, we shall be going forward under conditions which the agricultural community cannot possibly regard as fair.

Dr. ADDISON: I have looked very carefuly into the point raised by the Noble Lord. It is quite evident that we could not give a blank cheque to any Minister to make good the loss which any board might incur. That would not be
reasonable. There would be no incentive to frugality or care if the Treasury were behind them. I am sure the Noble Lord will recognise that. He makes a further point by which I am impressed as a reasonable point. It is true that, under the Bill in certain circumstances, by the Reorganisation Commission and by the proceedings set out in Clause 7 where a committee of inquiry have inquired into complaints, the Ministry is empowered if need be to reconstitute a board. The point put by the Noble Lord is this. Apart from the boards set up by producers themselves, in this case there is a board for whose composition the Minister is responsible and, therefore, if this board behaves imprudently, the Minister really has a share in the responsibility. That is a fair point, and I have been endeavouring during the last hour and a half to see if we could not find some way of meeting that point which is really fair. I understand it would not be open to me or to the Noble Lord to amend this Resolution to give effect to that. But I am prepared, if I can receive the assurance of the Noble Lord and his friends on the point, to suggest a proceeding which fairly meets the point. The suggestion I have to make is that the House should have the Resolution in a new form, with these words added to the paragraph relating to the Agricultural Marketing Fund:
and for such other purposes as may be provided by the said Act.
at the end of paragraph (c). That would enable us, when we get into Committee upstairs, to amend Clause 7 on the lines indicated. Unless these words were in, we could not so amend Clause 7. It will be seen that the words I have suggested are very wide words, and I should like it to be understood that they are put in for that purpose and not for all sorts of other purposes. Otherwise it would be necessary to put in precise words in the Amendment to the Resolution, which might perhaps tie us upstairs more than any of us could wish to be tied. I have taken care to try to define the purpose which would be behind this arrangement. It would be a proposal to widen the terms of the Resolution so as to enable the Minister or the Opposition upstairs to amend the Bill to enable the Minister to contribute to the debts of a board composed wholly or partly of his nominees. That would be one of the boards set up
by a Minister. The Amendment would make it permissive, because it is clear the Minister could not be compelled. It would have to be permissive in form and not mandatory. Another reason for that would be that a board may have to be reconstituted because the old board made a mess of it, and may have to take over the debts of the old board, with which it would not be fair to saddle the Minister.
I would ask the Noble Lord and his friends, if we withdraw this Resolution so as to introduce it in the amended form, that they should undertake not to ask me to make it mandatory, and that it should be understood that the Amendment to the Bill will be limited to boards nominated by the Minister under Clause 7 and not to the original boards. That is to say, power to contribute to the liquidation expenses in these cases would be limited to the cases where the boards were partly or wholly nominated by the Minister under the proceedings to which I have referred. If the Committee upstairs should desire to amend the Bill in that respect and not in other respects, I am prepared, if the Opposition agree, to withdraw this Resolution and bring it up again to-morrow. There is one other complement to that understanding for which I would like to ask. I understand it is agreed that the Report stage of the Resolution will be taken to-morrow evening. Therefore, it will be understood that the time taken on the Committee stage will be the time that otherwise would have been taken on the Report stage, and subsequently the Report stage will be a formal stage, and not an inroad on our time. If that arrangement can be entered into, I will act accordingly.

Viscount WOLMER: I am grateful to the Minister for the endeavour he is making to meet us. I should like to say at once—and I think I can say it on behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends—that if he will substitute a Resolution to-morrow which has the very wide term he read out, we shall not take unfair advantage of the very wide term, and it will enable us to move the Amendments which we desire to move on the Committee stage. The Minister says that he would be prepared to consider favourably an Amendment to Clause 7 of the Bill, but, as I have already indicated, that would not entirely meet our point of view.
We must reserve liberty to move Amendments to a similar effect in the case of schemes put forward by Reorganisation Commissions under Clause 13. I think if we were allowed to move in the Committee stage that the Minister should be empowered to contribute, in the event of any scheme going into liquidation under the auspices of a board, wholly or partly appointed by him, and to the liquidation expenses of any board that went into liquidation after having adopted a scheme sponsored by his Reorganisation Commission and himself, that would entirely meet the points we wish to raise.
I do not ask the Minister to commit himself with regard to our further point with reference to Clause 13, but we cannot merely accept the very narrow interpretation the Minister has just announced of what he intends to do. He is prepared to go a certain way, largely towards what we have been asking, but he has not yet gone the whole of the way, and we must reserve liberty to try to convince him on that point and to discuss the point on the Committee stage. I can assure him that we shall not use those wide words for the purpose of snaking wholly extraneous points. We have no desire to take an undue time in the Committee stage of this Bill. In regard to what will happen to-morrow, I take it that the Minister will have a new Resolution upon the Order Paper and that that will be taken in Committee during such time as we should have had for the Report stage of this Resolution. We on this side of the Committee do not think that the matter should be taken in a perfunctory fashion. In our view there should be full discussion—at least two or three hours discussion—as we should have had on the Report stage if this Resolution were not withdrawn. It would then be perfectly fair if we allowed the Report stage of the new Resolution which would have to be taken the day after to-morrow to go through formally. The result of such an arrangement would be that our opportunities of discussion would not be limited, and the Government would not have lost any time. At the same time, the Government would have amended their Resolution in such a way as to enable us to move the Amendments to which we attach great importance. The Minister is perfectly free to refuse or to accept those Amendments when we move them.

Dr. ADDISON: May I intervene once more in order to reply to the Noble Lord? I understand that the further liberty which the Noble Lord suggests should be confined to the liquidation point, but he wants to move Amendments in connection with any board set up under the Reorganisation Commission as well as under Clause 7. I accept that understanding, although I am not in any way tied to accept any Amendment with regard to reorganisation. I shall have very carefully to discuss this amended form between now and the Committee stage, because it is quite clear that if money were lost or disappeared in liquidation expenses it would pro tanto diminish the amount in the Marketing Fund. That point I should have to consider very carefully. I will do my very best to meet the point with regard to the board under Clause 7, but with regard to any reconstituted board in Clause 13, I say quite frankly that I must not give any pledge upon that point. If that could be arranged, I should be glad.

Viscount WOLMER: I take it that nothing I have said in any way prevents us from moving any Amendment which we could have moved under the old Financial Resolution?

Dr. ADDISON: Oh, no.

Viscount WOLMER: And that we are free to move any Amendment we like? It is only on the new words which the Minister is to introduce that we should confine ourselves?

Mr. SCOTT: I should like the Minister to realise for a moment that there is another Opposition below the Gangway, and that we on these benches are no party to the compact—rather an unholy compact I should say—which has just been made between the Minister and the Conservative party.

Dr. ADDISON: May I point out to the hon. Member for Kincardine (Mr. Scott) that the very same point was made by the first speaker on the benches below the Gangway, and I referred to both sections of the Opposition.

Mr. SCOTT: It may have been raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison), but not in the form in which it was raised by the Noble Lord. I, at least,
am not going to be a party to this arrangement, because I think that the reasons the Minister gave for the State becoming liable to make good losses in a scheme, seem to be entirely fallacious and inconclusive. I do not think that there is any reason for the State to come forward and make good the losses.

The CHAIRMAN: I understand that the Committee are trying to come to an arrangement, and the question which the hon. Member is now raising is one which might be discussed on the Committee stage of the Bill.

Mr. SCOTT: I only desire to say that I wish to dissociate myself from any attempt on the part of the two Front Benches to enter into an arrangement which will have the result of fleecing the taxpayers. I should have expected also that the Minister would have made an effort to deal with other questions which were raised by speakers from these benches. I put a number of pointed questions to the Minister, and I hope that in the main they will be dealt with. I think that notes were taken by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, and, accordingly, I hope that he will deal with the point.

Dr. ADDISON: I intended no discourtesy to the hon. Member, and I am sure that he realises that I did not wish to be discourteous. I understand that these points will be replied to in the discussion to-morrow. My hon. Friend has made notes. I hope that the hon. Member will accept that explanation and that he and his friends will not object to the course which is being proposed.

Mr. GUINNESS: To avoid any possible misunderstanding at a later stage, and to make the position clear, we should be allowed, I suppose, to move any Amendment about contributions on winding-up under Clause 2? Obviously, the Minister could resist such an Amendment, but we wish to raise the issue which I outlined earlier in the Debate, that in special cases, such as the case where we made a large contribution three years ago, it should be open to the Minister to consider the propriety of a contribution. The Minister has made it clear that it cannot possibly be mandatory upon him to contribute to all these boards in case of failure, but we shall want to put forward to the Minister a plea of liberty
to consider all these cases. A case may never arise under Clause 2, but in view of the precedent of the Agricultural Co-operative Society and the disastrous effect upon the whole co-operative movement when a failure takes place involving a lot of small people, we should have an opportunity of raising this point in Committee, and I want to make sure that it will not be considered any breach of faith if we do so.

Dr. ADDISON: I hope that we shall agree that these words are used to cover the winding-up point. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Resolution.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Do I understand that we have sufficient funds in hand to pay the liquidator's fee?

The CHAIRMAN: We cannot discuss that point. If hon. Members wish the arrangement to which the two Front Benches have come to be recognised, there must be no further discussion today. If hon. Members discuss the matter, the whole thing falls to the ground for the time being.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: If I wish to discuss it, does it fall to the ground? I very strongly object to the arrangement.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I desire to move to report Progress.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered,
That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—[Dr. Addison.]

Orders of the Day — MINING INDUSTRY (WELFARE FUND) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Little time remains before the House proceeds to other Business, and I am not sure whether I can meet the wishes of the House regarding this Bill in the short time at my disposal. If I could assume that this was a non-contentious Measure, it could be disposed of at once.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Oh, no.

Mr. SHINWELL: As there appears to be some little disapproval of that modest proposal, I must occupy some little time in explaining the purpose of the Bill. If there should be, as apparently there is, some disagreement, I shall content myself with a short explanation to begin with, and reply on the Debate at a later stage. I think I can assume that there will be little opposition to this Measure, because when the provision was embodied in the Mining Industry Act, 1920, for the purpose of promoting welfare in mining districts, the Measure was presented by the Coalition Government of the day. Five years later, when it was decided to continue portions of the Miners' Welfare Fund, the proposal was sponsored by the late Government. In these circumstances—

It being half-past Seven of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

Orders of the Day — SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
It is with regret that I rise to move this Amendment. I have long felt that a Private Bill should not be objected to as a general rule, and more especially in the case of a Bill, such as the one presented by the Surrey County Council, which contains a large number of purely local provisions which are not the concern of anyone who resides outside the council area, and with which I have no concern, and it is solely because of one big point of principle that this Bill contains that I move its rejection at this stage. So far as the general provisions of the Bill are concerned I have no comment to make, but in Part VIII of the Bill, which deals with town plan-
ning, the Surrey County Council is taking a line that seems to me to be undesirable at the present time. I wish to make it quite plain that I am not opposed to town planning or, rather, as I gather this Bill proposes, regional planning, as such. I believe that it is necessary in order to preserve the amenities of our countryside that a considerable measure of regional planning should take place, but I wish to protest against any one single local authority bringing in a Bill and seeking to obtain very far-reaching powers dealing with town planning, more especially as there is at the present time a Departmental Committee sitting in this connection at the Ministry of Health which I believe has achieved a very large measure of agreement.
Anything that is done in the way of regional planning should be done by a Government Department and applied to the whole country. Any attempt to deal with this very important question piece-meal, one county perhaps taking one set of powers and the next county perhaps taking another set of powers, is likely to make confusion worse confounded. Everyone admits that our present system of regional or town planning is in a very unsatisfactory condition, and if one authority is to be given special powers which are not applicable to another county it will mean that those who own land those who wish to develop land will be put into a state of hopeless confusion as between one county and the next. Any action taken merely by one authority in this respect is inadequate, and it is in order to call the attention of the House to the undesirability of any local authority, no matter how powerful or how important it may be, taking separate action at this moment, that I have taken the course I am taking to-night.
Among other Clauses in the Bill there is one, Clause 61, which makes elaborate arrangements for the prevention of ribbon development. I do not know anyone in this House who is in favour of ribbons development. A great deal of work is being done up and down the country in the making of new roads, and there can be no doubt that ribbon development has created eyesores on the countryside. We should all welcome
some comprehensive Measure for getting rid of it, but when we look at Clause 61 we notice that it contains several very peculiar powers. In the first place, the council seek authority to declare any county road a main road for the purposes of this Section. I am not certain how that conflicts with the existing Statutes relating to he powers of the Ministry of Transport in regard to roads. If and when that is done, it is provided that nobody may build within a certain distance of the road.
Then comes a proposition to which I take strong exception, namely, that any person who says that his property is injuriously affected under this Section is entitled to apply for compensation from the county council. If we are going to pay compensation out of the rates in respect of improvements and regional planning, we are going to create for ourselves a great amount of trouble. One of the very difficult problems in dealing with any question of regional planning is on what basis the compensation shall be paid. If we are going to place on the rates of one county the liability for compensation, which in similar cases may not be accepted by another county, I feel that we are going to get into the most hopeless confusion, and that things will be left undone in one county that are done in another, simply because of the financial consideration. This financial consideration cuts at the very root of developments, and it is for that reason that I think it is absolutely necessary and essential that whatever method of compensation is adopted it should be a uniform one that applies to the whole country and not one that applies to one county, whose scheme may cut completely across the plans that may be submitted by the Government. I do not know the Government's scheme, but I do know that in America in many States a system has been introduced whereby when certain lands are being developed certain portions are set aside for open spaces. A levy is made upon those whose land is scheduled for building, and the finances derived there-from provides very favourable compensation for those whose interests have been affected. I think that is a very fair system. If the Surrey County Council is to be allowed to put compensation on the rates as a method of stopping ribbon development, another county council may
introduce another and perhaps a better system for dealing with the question, and we shall get confusion. That is another reason why I think these particular powers should not be granted to any one local authority at the present time.
There is a very long and very elaborate Clause dealing with petrol stations. I do not know how Surrey may suffer in this respect, but I think that a Clause of this length and complexity ought not to be introduced by a single council. Then there are various powers sought for acquiring land? I hope that it will not be necessary for local authorities to acquire land to preserve views. There is no reason why a vast amount of land in the country should not be used for normal agricultural occupation and be scheduled for agricultural occupation only, and at the same time be preserved for the enjoyment of views. If a local authority is to be allowed to acquire every new piece of land which might give access to every beauty spot, the financial burden that will be thrown upon local authorities will be very great. I am certain that in a vast number of counties this particular system would be accompanied by very heavy cost. That is another reason why this particular power should not be granted to one local authority, but that it should be part of a national scheme dealing with the subject on general lines rather than in the particular Clause of any County Council Bill.
There is another Clause to which I should like to draw attention, namely, Clause 144, which deals with the preservation of woodlands. That, again, is not desirable. There may be, and there very often are, good reasons for felling woodlands. It may be desirable that land which has been under forest should be used for other purposes, agricultural or otherwise, but we do not want stray powers of this kind incorporated in the local Act of any one authority, no matter how big or important that authority may be. Lastly, this Bill applies to one county. So far as I know there is no other county at the present time which is proposing to use these powers. Obviously, it must mean in the case of people who own estates partly inside and partly outside, but adjoining the county, will experience considerable difficulty in the development of their estates. In respect of that part of their estate which
lies in the county of Surrey they will be tied by the regulations of this Bill, but they will be left in complete perplexity as to what may happen to that portion of the estate which is outside the county of Surrey. There is a provision in the Bill enabling the county council to alter the boundaries of existing estates. I do not know whether that should be of universal application, but if you apply that principle of the alteration of estate boundaries only in Surrey you may not be able to apply it to another portion of the same estate, and it will make for much confusion and inconvenience. It may lead to a very large amount of that ribbon development and that lack of skilled planning in counties which are fairly close to London and adjacent to Surrey, merely because by going over the county border people will he able to escape these regulations. If we have a national scheme dealing with the whole country it will be impossible for people to avoid the regulations in that way. I fear very much that one effect of this Bill will be to produce undesirable development in adjoining counties. It is in order that we may hear the views of the Surrey County Council and the Ministry of Health that I move my Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: I beg to second the Amendment.
I wish to reinforce the argument of my hon. and gallant Friend that it is necessary to draw the attention of this House to the growing practice on the part of local authorities of coming to Parliament and seeking powers of a character which go far beyond those which can properly be described as coming within the category of local needs and interests. There is a natural tendency on the part of every local authority to make itself as important as possible and to acquire as wide powers as they can induce Parliament to grant. That action is only natural, but there comes a point where a dividing line must be drawn between matters which must be settled on lines of broad national policy, and matters which may well be left to the particular needs or particular fads and fancies of any local authority. I would ask the House to consider the Preamble of the Bill:
To confer further powers on the Surrey County Council and to enact further pro-
visions with respect to the good Government and administration.
No one objects to the county council of Surrey asking for powers dealing with the good government and administration of Surrey. That, obviously, is what the Surrey County Council exists for, but when we come to the next sentence:
and the preservation of the amenities.
we open up a very wide question. It is not that anyone desires that any amenity in Surrey should be destroyed; far from it, but if the County Council of Surrey acquires special powers to deal with these amenities in its own particular way, other county councils will probably say that this power has been granted to one county and that they would like Parliament to grant similar powers to them. It is far too big a power to grant to any particular county. I invite the House to consider how a Clause of this kind gets sandwiched between Clauses quite different and purely local in character. I will read the marginal note to Clause 141:
Supply of water to Botleys Park.
A most legitimate undertaking. Clause 142 deals with the dissolution of the Surrey smallpox hospital committee, no doubt a matter well within the province of the Surrey County Council, who are no doubt capable of deciding whether that body should disappear. Clause 143 deals with footpaths; there we come to the border-line, but we will let it pass. When we come to Clause 144 the marginal note is:
Preservation of woodlands.
Here the Surrey County Council are asking for powers which it would be wrong, and impossible, for Parliament to grant to any particular local authority. This is an instance of a Clause of national importance being hidden away among a lot of other comparatively small matters dealing with baths and wash-houses. Having once given such powers to any particular local authority it becomes a precedent, and all other local authorities will seek to acquire the same powers. Let me return to the Preamble of the Bill. The powers sought there are for the control of establishments used for massage and of places used for certain classes of public entertainments, the sale of coke, moveable dwellings and encamp-
ments, the construction of roads, town planning and building developments, and the prevention of acts tending to injure rural amenities. No doubt it is very necessary there should be powers for the regulation of massage establishments, but it would be far better for the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health to bring in a Bill dealing with it.
The same applies to places of public entertainment, which I presume would fall within the province of the Home Secretary. The sale of coke is a matter for the President of the Board of Trade. There is not a village, or hamlet or town, in which coke is not sold, and if the sale of coke is to be regulated it should be regulated by one law covering the whole of the country. The question of moveable dwellings has troubled the House in times past, but I have no doubt that the Minister of Transport is quite capable of dealing with that point. Town planning is a matter which should be dealt with by the Minister of Health. In this Preamble, with the exception of good government and administration, all the matters mentioned would be much better dealt with on a national basis, and it is to protest against the growing habit of local authorities coming to Parliament for powers to deal with such matters that I second the Motion for rejection.

Mr. MELLER: The observations of my two hon. Friends rather lead to the conclusion that this is a very good Bill. The Preamble lays down that the principal objects of the Bill are the good government of the country and to preserve the amenities of the county of Surrey, and I should have thought they were objects which my hon. Friends would praise, whether they are in a national Bill or in a county Bill. Apparently, my two hon. Friends think that these things are good: then why not allow us as an enlightened and advancing county to set them going, and not keep the county of Surrey falling into the background by raising a number of objections? After all, are we not having a number of things set right and thus setting an example to other counties who are not so enlightened? I gather from the kindly observations of my two hon. Friends that they are not objecting to the Bill. They are prepared to let the points they have mentioned go to Committee, where they could be raised, and I
hope that without any very prolonged discussion the House will come to the conclusion that that is the right procedure to follow. No strong abjection has been raised to this Bill outside the House. There have been those objections which are always raised when any attempt is made to get a private Bill through, but, on the other hand, there has been strong co-operation by all local authorities in the county and on some Clauses criticism of a, well-informed and kindly nature.
The county of Surrey stands in a very peculiar position. It is a, county which I hope is known to the majority of hon. Members of this House. It provides the highways to the South Coast, and it has some of the most beautiful uplands and woodlands. Some of its scenes have been described in paintings. It is the desire of the county council to preserve these beautiful amenities. Think of the position of Surrey during the past 10 years! There has been an enormous growth of population, a great development in building, and unless the county authorities take steps very early, much of the beauty of which we are proud and are endeavouring to preserve for posterity will disappear altogether. That is the main object of this Bill. Some of the items to which my hon. Friends have referred are very small matters indeed, such as massage establishments and smallpox hospital committees. But are they not important parts of the good government of a county, and the very things which the county authority should take in hand?
In the consideration of this Measure three main principles stand out—the sporadic development, the sporadic and uncontrolled ribbon development of bungalows, and the need of a considered policy in the provision of substantial open spaces. I wish hon. Members had seen some of the hideous things which Surrey has had to face during the past few years, the sporadic development and the ribbon development of bungalows, which has taken place regardless of any consideration to the aesthetic views of the residents and visitors. This is not a Bill solely for the residents in the county. The county authority is endeavouring to preserve the amenities for the great mass of people who go there for picnics and camping. We ask this House to help the county council in their desire to preserve them. On the question of open
spaces, it is quite true that they have powers for the acquisition of open spaces, and a great deal has been done by the county in the purchase of small open spaces, but there comes a time when it is not a small matter, when the space you desire to preserve is beyond the means of the local authorities, a large open space, such as the one which is mentioned in the Bill, namely, the acquisition of Norbury Park. The attempt there is to preserve a real beauty spot of considerable acreage, a thing impossible for the local authorities. The county council, having regard for the county as a whole, and not for the particular locality, rightly says, "Yes, we will obtain powers, and we believe that an enlightened House of Commons will give us such powers, so that we can go forward with that particular project."
In the matter of town planning, the statutory provision which exists allows for a degree of town planning, and some authorities have done what they can in collaboration with the county council, but it would be unwise and dangerous in the present state of the county of Surrey to postpone this matter for another year. The hon. and gallant Member says that policy, so far as town planning or regional planning is concerned, should be a national question. Very well, if we can have the national question settled at once by all means, but what hope is there in the present state of Government business of getting a Bill through dealing with town-planning on a national scale? The hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) says that while these may be beneficent powers for the country as a whole, if they are given to the county of Surrey, think what might happen if they are not given to Kent, Berkshire or Sussex! I hope that the Bill will receive the support of the House, so that other local authorities will be up and doing; will follow the good example set by Surrey and come forward and ask for similar powers for their own county.
8.0 p.m.
So far, the only real difficulty raised by the Bill is on the question of regional planning and the preservation of amenities. The hon. and gallant Member for Maldon (Lieut.-Colonel Ruggles-Brise) regretted that this important departure had been sandwiched amongst smaller and unimportant things. The importance of a particular Clause in a Bill does not
depend upon its position in the Bill. If the particular Clause is No. 12 or No. 144, it does not matter, the principle is there; it is not suggested that the Clauses are in the order of the value of the suggestions we are making. We have had, and still possess, in the county of Surrey a number of enlightened landowners who have been anxious to co-operate with us. The good development of estates within the county has been carried out by landowners who are largely in agreement with the principles of this Bill. We are going to get their co-operation, but we have a few persons who do not see things in that particular light. We want to say to those that a great example has been set them by a majority of landowners and if they are not prepared to come in under the old order of things then, unfortunately, we must apply to them a little compulsion, but the county council are not proposing to act harshly. The comments and criticisms which have been made upon some of the Clauses have been of a kindly nature. When the Bill reaches Committee, if there has been well-informed criticism and if reasonable suggestions have been made, accommodation will be found. I think that when the Bill has passed through Committee it will come to this House blessed by those who, in a faint way, may condemn it to-night. I hope it will receive a Second Reading and that it will be an example to other counties to follow.

Lady CYNTHIA MOSLEY: I rise to support the Bill and I hope very much that it will get a Second Reading. I have put my name to the Bill, not as a resident of Surrey, but because I very whole-heartedly approve of the general outline of the Bill. As one who, although not living in Surrey, goes down there fairly frequently and who knows that hundreds and thousands of other people also go down there fairly frequently, I hope that the Bill will pass its Second Reading. It is absolutely essential that local authorities should be given further powers to prevent any development that they may consider to be not in keeping with the district. One welcomes the fact that the county council of Surrey has realised the situation that is facing it. Surrey is an exceptionally beautiful county. It also happens to be very near
to London; it is very accessible; and expansion is going on at a tremendous rate. New arterial roads are being cut through the county. Unfortunately already there have been many rather deplorable developments. It is a real joy to see an authority realising the situation and making an effort to cope with it before it is too late, and endeavouring to see that the amenities of the county are preserved.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) said that the part of the Bill to which he objected was Part VIII. But it is almost entirely because of Part VIII that I take an interest in the Bill. I do not know very much about the technical details, which concern only the county council. It seems to me that the provisions in Part VIII are of the utmost importance. Nearly every one of the provisions in Part VIII—I think I should be right in saying every one of them—have already been approved by this House in the two Rural Amenities Bills that have already been introduced and have been given a unanimous Second Reading. On the question of rural amenities surely there is nobody who would not agree that some developments may be deplorable and disastrous. A great new road may, in itself, he a fine thing, but if you build rows of abominable and beastly little villas alongside it, a district may be ruined. It seems to me that the Surrey County Council are facing that fact, that they are anxious to see that the space on each side of these roads is kept free, and that trees are planted alongside the roads. They are concerned with the efficiency of traffic and the preservation of amenities. There can be nothing worse than indiscriminate roadside development. The Surrey County Council ought to be highly commended in that they have had the sense not to wait for anyone else to come along, and in this Bill are trying to ensure that their own county is not spoilt.
Then there is the question of the regulation of design and elevation. That is of the utmost importance. You cannot allow people to dump down ugly and unsuitable dwellings in any place they may like. It is perfectly legitimate that the county council should have the power to see that the design and the elevation
are adapted to the situation in which a dwelling is to be built. There are many other important Clauses which I cannot touch upon now. The last speaker spoke of the great importance of open spaces, and there is another item in the Bill which is of the utmost importance, and that is the provision relating to the preservation of views. There are numerous fine views in Surrey. The most beautiful view in the world can be spoilt by one unsuitable and glaring building, one ugly piece of architecture, one unsightly advertisement, one ugly industrial or private building. I know many really beautiful views that are absolutely wrecked because of one or two things of that description. I am very glad that the Surrey County Council have made regulations about petrol stations. I do not want anybody to think that I am "anti-petrol station." You must have these things, I suppose, but they should be as unobjectionable as possible. There are many petrol stations that might be a great deal worse than they are. They are nicely designed, they are not ugly, and they are not glaring, but, on the other hand, there are petrol stations that make one feel ill. It is a very good thing that the county council should be given further powers to see that these absolutely necessary wayside petrol stations are of the very best description.
Surrey is absolutely the right county to have introduced a Bill of this description, because it is a county most accessible to London, it is a, county which is expanding very rapidly at present, and the highest possible commendation should be given to the representatives of that county on the fact that they have felt it incumbent on them to introduce this Bill at the present moment. As for the argument that Surrey should not go ahead but should be condemned to wait about until the Government or some other county comes forward with a scheme, that seems to me to be a very bad argument indeed. I believe that here one could draw a moral affecting the whole country at present. What is wrong is that nobody seems to start doing anything until it is too late. A great many deplorable things have happened already in Surrey, and it is essential that the county council should do something before it is too late, that it should look a little further than its own nose, and
that it should introduce these provisions before the situation has become too irksome and before it is too late to improve upon it. So many people do nothing until they are caught out, and then they fall down and do not know where they are. I hope this Bill may prove an example to other authorities. I know the Government have announced that they hope to bring in a Bill, but business is so crowded that there does not seem very much hope of such a Bill being introduced at present, and there is absolutely nothing wrong in the Surrey County Council looking ahead. It is indeed refreshing to find that people are anticipating events, instead of waiting for events to overwhelm them.
I hope that this county, which has realised the dangers ahead of it and has put before the House a co-ordinated and comprehensive plan and scheme, will have its proposals sympathetically considered, and that the House will encourage the council in the stand it has taken, bearing in mind the object of the Bill, which is that this really beautiful county shall be preserved, as far as possible, before it is too late. If they waited six months, a year, or 18 months, a tremendous lot of harm would be done. About six years ago we had a house in Surrey, and I used to travel down a certain road out of London. Now, when I go that way, I hardly recognise the road; there is so much building going on and the rural beauty has been ruined and wrecked. I hope the House, without a Division, will pass the Second Reading of the Bill, and will commend the Surrey County Council for its forethought and foresight in putting forward this Measure to preserve the amenities of its county.

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: The Bill to which we are asked to give a Second Reading contains no fewer than 161 Clauses and some four Schedules. It is obvious that one cannot draw up a Bill with all those Clauses without introducing some item that would be objected to by different Members or different sections of this House. But those who object to this Bill have to show rather more than a justifiable criticism of certain items. That is a matter for the Committee stage, and no doubt a Bill of this length will receive, if it gets to Committee, very careful consideration at that stage.
But the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) goes a great deal further than that, because, if it is proceeded with, it is tantamount to a rejection of this Bill, and I submit that, to justify that, the supporters of that Amendment have to show not detailed criticism of certain parts, but reasonable objection to the main principles of the Bill. The hon. and gallant Member for Oxford referred on more than one occasion to the fact that, no matter how important a local authority might be, regional planning should be more properly a matter of national concern, and he seemed afraid to throw further responsibility on even an important local authority. But we have so much business before us in this House—and that business tends to increase from year to year—that surely it is obvious that more important functions will have to be entrusted to local authorities in the future than in the past. That does not seem to me to be a valid objection to this Bill.
As to the interesting nature of the principles which this Bill sets out to achieve, the promoters of the Bill, influenced no doubt by the fact that it is such a long measure, have sent us all a copy of a statement in support of the Second Reading in which they summarise the principles of the Bill. Obviously, there are two considerations on that. The first is, does that summary fairly represent the contents of the Bill? I think those hon. Members who have looked through the Bill will agree with me that, on the whole, the summary is a very fair statement of the main provisions of the Bill. The second point is: Are they principles which can reasonably be commended to the consideration of this House in order that the Bill may have a Second Reading? I will not read the whole statement, though it is not a very long one, but I will just draw the attention of the House to the general nature of the provisions, that are therein set out. For example, we have:
Powers with respect to the Norbury Park Estate bought by the Council in order to save it from ruin by undesirable building operations.
The prevention of indiscriminate dumping of caravans and other movable structures.
The prevention of ribbon development along county roads.
The preservation of woodlands.
I think that those objects might fairly be summarised as an endeavour to preserve the amenities of the county for the benefit of the general public, and to preserve them from the wilful or careless damage of a few. At any rate those hon. Members who agree with that description of the objects of the Bill, will agree that the Bill is worthy of a Second Reading. If there are any who think that that description is not a fair one, I suggest for their consideration the fact that, though only a few of us may live in Surrey, everyone in this House visits Surrey at some time or other, and I defy any Member who visits the county, even only occasionally, to deny that the amenities of the county are being rapidly spoiled. It may be urged that the powers required to preserve these amenities are powers that ought not to be required. I am inclined to agree with that view. The trouble of course is the terrible badness of public manners in this respect. The remedy for this kind of thing is an enlightened public opinion, informed by education. But that is a slow business and this is a very urgent problem.
If public opinion in years to come is more enlightened than that of to-day, so that the necessity for such measures would no longer be so great, it would then be impossible to put back the beauties that had been destroyed in the meantime. Therefore, however those of us who are inclined to dislike any extension of public control over the individual may consider carefully the provisions of the Bill in Committee, on the general question of control versus public opinion, we must on this occasion vote for control on the ground of urgency, if on that ground alone. To sum up: The beauty of our countryside is in some sense a national possession. It is a possession of very great value. When a measure is laid before us designed to preserve beauty, we ought at least to see that such a measure is carefully examined, and in order that a measure of this kind may have careful and detailed examination it is necessary that it should have a Second Reading. I therefore hope that the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) will not insist upon his. Amendment. If he does insist upon it, I shall vote against it.

Mr. PALMER: I wish to support the Bill. Much as I would emphasise the desire to preserve amenities, I think the really strong case for the Bill is that in a county like Surrey we should vest the county council with the powers that they want for developing the countryside along the lines of utility as well as the preservation of the amenities. Surrey is very largely suburban London, and for that reason we must have regard for town planning and the right type of housing. There is no reason why house elevations should not have due regard to the aesthetic tastes of people who are born in Surrey and who know Surrey as a very beautiful county. I knew Croydon 40 years ago, and it is only a little way out of London. There have been tremendous developments there. In a real sense Surrey is a county where it is possible to house a great mass of the people who work in London during the day-time. I hope that the Bill will get a Second Reading and that in Committee we shall have an opportunity of seeing that the provisions of the Bill have full regard to the development of housing, the improvement of roads, the acquiring of open spaces, the preservation of woodlands, and that all these things are made compatible with the crying needs of the present day. I was born in Surrey and I have nothing but admiration for the county.

Sir GEORGE PENNY: I support the Bill because I think it a very reasonable Bill. The views expressed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) I welcome as criticisms which will make us look carefully into the Bill and see that nothing which should not be there is included in it. From my hon. and gallant Friend's remarks I gather that he is rather anxious whether giving these powers to the county council may cut across the powers of the Government, should the Government at any time bring in a Bill of this description. We know that in the King's Speech the Government adumbrated a Bill for regional town planning, but so far it has not been introduced. I think the Surrey County Council are to be commended for having taken time by the forelock with the object of preserving the amenities of a beautiful county. In many parts of the country one sees unsightly and hideous buildings
and hoardings spoiling the view. That is what the Surrey County Council wish to prevent. I am sure that their object is to do good, and I hope that their example will lead other local authorities to take an interest in preserving the amenities of the countryside. For these reasons I feel sure that the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford will withdraw his opposition, and not press it to a Division. The hon. and gallant Member for Maldon (Lieut.-Colonel Ruggles-Brise) seemed to suggest that the county council were trying to make themselves important. If I thought for a moment that that was his suggestion I should at once tell him that they are important already. I know the composition of the county council; I know that they are a very progressive authority, and I submit that there are many counties in this country which could take pattern from them. I support the Bill, and I hope that my hon. and gallant Friends will withdraw the Motion for its rejection.

Sir NEWTON MOORE: I also welcome the Bill and I am very gratified at the reception which the House has given to the Measure. The only criticisms directed against it have been upon matters which can be very well dealt with in Committee. Reference has been made to the rural amenities of Surrey which are, in my opinion, being violated in many districts and I only hope that the county in which I live, namely Sussex, will soon bring forward a similar Measure with a view to preserving its amenities. Anyone who knows the towns along the Kingston by-pass road and down as far as Horsham, must be aware of the many incongruous and unsightly buildings which are being erected and the indiscriminate spread of houses of the bungalow type which is taking place all over the country and by which the scenery is fast being destroyed. In Sussex near Horsham there is a huge brick factory right alongside the road, destroying the appearance of the countryside. I hope that the good example set by Surrey will be followed by other counties.
I observe on the Order Paper a Notice of Motion which proposes that there should be an Instruction to the Committee to leave out Part IX of the Bill. This is a matter which particularly affects the district in Surrey which I
have the honour to represent, and I wish to say that the Bill has the full and unqualified support of all the local authorities in that division, namely, the Richmond Borough Council, the Barnes and Mortlake Urban District Council and the Ham Urban District Council. The Barnes Council particularly is naturally in favour of the provision in Part IX which deals specifically with their area. Conferences have taken place in regard to this Measure with local authorities throughout Surrey. Its provisions have been carefully examined and the various committees of the local authorities are thoroughly in accord with the proposal to grant these powers to the county council. I am at a loss to know why there should be any opposition to the provision which particularly affects Barnes. It was carried, I think, by 24 votes to one at the Barnes Urban District Council and it proposes to effect an urgently needed reform. The medical officer has had the opportunity of inspecting the district which will be affected, and it is proposed that instead of a narrow winding road, varying from 5 feet in width to 25 feet, there shall be a proper roadway 50 feet wide through a congested part of the district.
There is a school in that area, and at present it is not possible to get near it with a carriage or a car. If this improvement is made it will provide a very desirable open space for the children who attend that school. Having had the opportunity of inspecting this locality I realise that many of the buildings there almost bring it within the category of a slum area. Those buildings will be wiped out, but the people will have the opportunity of obtaining suitable houses. I understand that something like £68,000 expenditure will be made in connection with this reform, and of that sum, the Barnes Council will provide £25,000 for housing, while £10,000 will come from the general rates towards the making of the road. It is a most desirable improvement, and at the same time it will afford a certain amount of employment. No doubt this matter will be discussed in Committee, but I take this opportunity of expressing the hope that the hon. Member who has put down the Notice of Motion for an Instruction, will not persist in it, in opposition to the wishes
not only of the local council, but of the people of the neighbourhood, as Part IX is, in my opinion, one of the most desirable parts of the Bill.

Mr. MAITLAND: It is obvious that the House is almost prepared to come to a decision upon this Bill and in accordance with what I take to be the wishes of hon. Members I shall not speak at great length. The opposition offered to this Bill by some of my hon. Friends on this side was so fair and moderate that it has almost disarmed those of us who are supporting the Bill and I rise merely for the purpose of giving an assurance on one point which has been raised and not of entering into any of the other details involved—although some of those I am quite prepared to discuss. Some criticism has arisen regarding the possible closing of a footpath in the Norbury Park Estate. The council is asking Parliament for powers by which it is hoped it will be possible to preserve the estate for the benefit of the public for all time. A matter of £85,000 is involved, which for the time being, has been borrowed by the council for this purpose. The council believe that they are not justified in expending from public funds such a large sum but they are prepared to make a substantial contribution and the fact that they have received very considerable public and private support has justified their action in preventing this estate from becoming the subject of speculative building.
In connection with the development of that estate they are acting under the advice of the most eminent town-planning and estate development experts. It is not possible at this moment to say exactly what form the development may ultimately take. To some extent that will be governed by the final financial operations which are involved but in consultation with competent authorities and representatives of societies interested in the preservation of the English countryside they have prepared a scheme. There is nothing definite or binding about that scheme except to provide for the fact that in certain eventualities it may be necessary for the borders of the estate to be developed on sound artistic lines. If that should be so it may also be found that the finances are not such as to warrant the council in keeping the whole of the estate, and it may be neces-
sary to sell the mansion, but that is a matter of conjecture and I do not make it as a definite statement.
If it should be found necessary they are advised by the authorities to whom I have referred that it may be necessary to close up one of the footpaths. This suggestion has aroused criticism both in the London and the county Press but I am authorised to say that before that suggestion has been put into practice, before, indeed, a Committee of this House is asked to give power to the county council to close that particular footpath, the council will give an undertaking that an alternative will be provided. I need not go into details of the scheme, this part of which has been subjected to some criticism, except to say that it will enable the estate to be developed in such a way that the public will have a much better opportunity of enjoying its beauties than the present footpaths and general arrangements provide. Almost daily Parliament is putting on local authorities heavy responsibilities, and I am sure that this House would not at any time think it right and proper to put on local authorities responsibilities and duties without necessary powers to carry out those duties and to bear the burden of those responsibilities. It will be admitted that the county authorities are the best judges of the kind of powers which they need. This House is the authority that should and does decide the form in which those powers are granted. The opposition has been very fairly and moderately directed to the particular aspect of the subject, and I am sure that any points which have been raised and which can reasonably be met on Committee stage, will be willingly met by those who are promoting the Bill.

Major LLEWELLIN: I do not wish to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill, but I feel that there is considerable weight in the criticism that was brought to bear by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne). A Departmental Committee of which I am a member is sitting at the Ministry of Health trying to co-ordinate a larger number of the powers and duties of local authorities. They find, as the Ministry do, that there are different qualifications and disqualifications for parish councils, rural district councils, borough councils, county councils and so
on; and if Bills like this are to be brought in, a similar committee will have to be set up some day to see if they can co-ordinate all the different powers which have been given to local authorities. I hope that some Measure dealing with rural amenities will be brought in to cover the country as a whole. This Bill contains a Clause dealing with a matter which I have very much at heart, that is, the dumping of refuse. Clause 89 will be a very good thing for the county of Surrey, and it ought to apply to every county round London, but it will mean that if it is passed for Surrey, every county round London, a part of one of which, Middlesex, I represent, will be left as dumping grounds for the London refuse.
If every county round London had a clause passed in exactly the same words as Clause 89, there would be nowhere possibly where London boroughs would be able to dump their refuse, because there is no overriding power in this Clause given to the Ministry of Health, as I should like to see, to provide that in certain waste areas dumps might be allowed for the refuse of London. I should like to see these questions, such as the question of the dumping of refuse, dealt with by the Government in a short one-Clause Measure bringing in very similar provisions to the one contained in this Bill. I do not want to see this one county favoured in this matter so as to leave the rest as dumping grounds for refuse.
Of the other powers in the Bill, Clause 144 will be completely ineffective to preserve the woodlands in the county, for the simple reason that it is only provided that when the trees are felled the county council may say that nothing else can be done with the ground except to plant further trees; and if the owner of the ground does not wish to plant further trees, the place will remain derelict with only stumps of wood round about. Another Clause to which I want to draw attention is Clause 62. I see no reason why the county council should have the power compulsorily to acquire land round the existing country roads. If they were limited to using such land for open spaces, it would not be objectionable, but if a county council acquire land along the roads, it is obviously much more economical for them to put up their houses there and to be ribbon developers themselves.
It is far cheaper, once you have a road, to put the houses by it, and it may be found that a perfectly good landlord who would not have encouraged or allowed ribbon development, will have his land taken by the county council and they will put up some of their council houses alongside.

Mr. EDE: The county council have no power to erect houses.

Major LLEWELLIN: Once they have acquired the land, I see nothing in this Section which prevents them from selling it. They can sell it under the Clause at a profit, or sell it to the local district council who can put up council houses. So that, although I was technically wrong in saying that the county council could erect the houses, there is under the Clause nothing to prevent them from selling it to others who could do so. The only other points that are liable to criticism in a Bill like this are Clause 13 and 143, both of which try by Act of Parliament to stop up public rights of way. No doubt, however, these are matters which can be gone into in Committee, and I hope that whoever sits on the Committee will see that if these public rights of way are stopped up the county will give something back to those who like to wander about the country in return for the rights that will be stopped up. Many of the powers which the county council are taking in this Bill are good, and I shall vote for the Second Reading if it goes to a Division.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): One or two of the objections which have been made to this Bill are, obviously, points for Committee consideration. The rejection has been moved on the ground that the powers asked for are powers that can or might be used by all local authorities, and that, therefore, they should form part of a general Bill. I want to protest against that new and dangerous view of the powers of local authorities. It relegates local authorities altogether to too helpless a position. Many of the powers that are now generally exercised by local authorities were in the first place granted by Parliament to a particular locality on the demand of the locality; they were copied by others, and finally, in many instances, they became general powers made obli-
gatory on all authorities. There are Committee points which affect the Ministry of Health, and on those the Ministry of Health will give a report; there are other Committee points which affect my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and on those his Department will give a report; but I can see nothing whatever to make the House hesitate about giving the Bill a Second Reading. It ought to be a matter of congratulation to anyone interested in local government to see a great and important local authority breaking fresh ground, and in the words of the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Meller), inspired with the purest spirit of local patriotism, "making his own local authority an example which others will copy." I think the House ought to give the Measure a Second Reading, and that points of difficulty in connection with it should be reserved for the Committee stage.
Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
Bill read a Second time, and committed.

Mr. JAMES WILSON: I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Part IX.
On behalf of myself and those who are acting with me I desire to say that we are glad the Bill has been given a Second Reading without a Division, and from the point of view of its main ideas we hope it will have an equally speedy passage through all its remaining stages. But by universal consent Part IX is not an integral part of the Bill. It deals with a scheme which, I think, it is stretching the English language unduly to call a scheme—with something which would be more correctly described if one referred to it as "an accident." It may interest the House to know the history of this proposal which the Barnes Urban District Council have succeeded in getting incorporated in this Surrey County Council Bill. Early in 1929 the Barnes Council appointed a committee to look into the question of the High Street and into the question of housing. Not until towards the latter part of 1930 did that committee make any report to the council. By a sheer accident the officers of the Barnes Council found that the Surrey County Council were promoting an Omnibus Bill,
and in their desire to get their scheme—if scheme it can be called—included in the Bill, measures were hurriedly rushed through without reasonable time for discussion and consideration and without proper steps being taken to acquaint the ratepayers and others interested with the nature of the scheme.
An hon. Member opposite said the Barnes Council were unanimous in support of this scheme. That is not quite so. I grant at once that the Barnes Labour party, who have invited me to express their views in this place, in order that objections which they regard as valid may receive some attention, are not well represented on the Barnes Council, but there is no doubt in my mind that, small as is the Labour party there, they represent substantially the public view of the residents of Barnes and Mortlake on this matter. I have taken steps to satisfy myself as to that, because I will be no party to opposing this merely for the sake of opposition to any Measure to confer necessary powers upon a local authority.
The main purpose of Part IX is to construct a by-pass road through what are now very congested areas. This by-pass road, in its main features, runs counter to every modern authority on town planning and road construction. In the short distance of under half-a-mile this by-pass road will be intercepted and crossed at from four to six points by side streets. Every authority on road construction advises that that is one of the things which ought to be guarded against in the construction of traffic roads. No one who is interested in road-making will say that Professor Raymond Unwin is not an authority of some standing. What does he say in his report on the Regional Planning of Greater London, issued in 1929?
In order that traffic may not be delayed unduly, and that danger points may not be created too frequently, cross-roads or side-road junctions should be spaced not nearer than about one-third of a mile in suburban areas, and from half a mile upwards in the outer districts. Even at a third of a mile, cars travelling at 30 miles per hour would pass the junction every 40 seconds.
Professor Unwin tells us, therefore, that a small portion of a new road such as it is proposed under Part IX of this Bill to construct behind the existing Mortlake High Street ought not to he intercepted by cross or converging roads.
I am sure that is a point of view which will interest hon. Members in all parts of the House who are anxious to see public development and improved planning proceed along the right lines. I will quote the opinion of another authority which gave guidance and advice to the Barnes Council a short time ago. In a report on the Regional Planning of the Thames Valley in 1925 we are told:
Difficult corners at Mortlake and by the White Hart public house require improvement, and the narrow High Street of Mortlake is in urgent need of widening.
Effect has already been given to the recommendation as to the White Hart public house. In 1925 they said that the High Street, Mortlake, which is the place here referred to, was in urgent need of widening. Those for whom I act are opposing this scheme because they think it proceeds along wrong lines. Under this Bill the fast traffic will be thrown right up against the playground of the largest school in the district, and naturally the parents of the children are alarmed as to the dangers which may arise as the result of the passing of an ill-considered scheme of this kind. I will try to satisfy the House that there is a vast amount of public opinion in opposition to this scheme. I will quote first the opinion of one or two other authorities. No one will say that Professor Adshead, of the University of London, is a gentleman who could not be regarded as an authority on town planning and development. In a personal letter addressed to me he says:
As representing a wide body of opinion on questions of town planning and town improvements, may I say that you have my sympathetic support in opposing the Bill which the Surrey County Council have brought into Parliament, and which will, I understand, be discussed on Tuesday. Taking the Bill as a whole no one could welcome it more than myself, but containing as it does, Clauses providing for the so-called Mortlake High Street Improvement, the Bill should be opposed. I have lived for 10 years in the Mortlake High Street and know all the circumstances of this improvement. It would be wrong from a traffic point of view, wrong from a financial point of view, and spoil every opportunity for a real improvement to the old High Street in perpetuity.
That is the opinion of Professor Adshead, and I think he is an authority worthy of consideration. I will give another example of the many letters which have reached me in opposition to this Bill.
The Chairman of the Barnes Mortlake and East Sheen Ratepayers' Association writes:
As Chairman of the Barnes and Mortlake Amenities Committee I am writing to thank you for your efforts in opposing that part of the Bill of the Surrey County Council, Section 9 I believe, dealing with the proposed bye-pass road to Mortlake High Street.
My Committee are entirely against this scheme from beginning to end; it is really only a means by which the Council propose finding the site for a future housing scheme, to cost possibly £100,000, which we have no use for whatever in this district.
The Council have, very underhandedly, in our opinion, included this Section 9 in the Surrey County Council Bill, and have, so far as they possibly could, kept a knowledge of their movements away from the ratepayers in this district. They have never mentioned so far their intention to use this scheme as a basis for a housing scheme, but that is the next step in their procedure. I may say that this Committee has amongst its Members Professor Adshead, Professor of Town Planning at the University of London, and several architects, estate agents, doctors, etc., who are in a position to be able to judge this scheme from the technical and expert standpoint.
I could go on, if it were necessary, to quote other communications that have reached me from various sources in opposition to this Bill, but I do not want to take up too much time. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health has made my task much less difficult than it otherwise would have been, because she has given an assurance that before this Bill passes through the Committee stage the portion of the Bill which affects the Ministry of Health will be considered by the Ministry, and that which affects the Ministry of Transport will be considered by that Ministry. Consequently, each Ministry affected will consider the proposals of this Bill. I think t have drawn sufficient attention to these matters for the Ministries concerned to scrutinise carefully the provisions of this Bill before it is allowed to pass through Committee.
9.0 p.m.
As a result of the scheme put forward in this Bill, there will be between 86 and 90 working-class houses demolished, the tenants of which are at present living under the Rent Restrictions Act. Those tenants are apprehensive because, so far as is known at present, no alternative provision has been made to accommodate
the people who will be displaced by this scheme, which it is urged should be immediately carried out in order to find work for the unemployed. There are about 400 people who will be involved by this scheme, and it is highly desirable that this House should ensure, in Committee or in another place, that due and adequate provision shall be made for the people who would be displaced by the scheme. This point should be met before we allow the Bill to pass through Committee.
The Barnes District Council have some dubiety about the wisdom of their own scheme. They are anxious to avoid a division of opinion which would affect the passage of the Second Beading of the Bill. That body passed this resolution:
That while the council record with great regret the circumstances they, for the purpose of securing the passage through Parliament of the remaining parts of the Surrey County Council Bill in this session, do hereby comply with the requests of the county council, and give them full authority should they so desire, to withdraw Part IX of such Bill which sought power to enable the council to have dealt with a much-needed scheme of improvement and re-housing conditions in the Mortlake High Street area and providing a playground for the children. The council further desire to record their sense of deep appreciation of the courtesy and generosity of the Surrey County Council in endeavouring to obtain sanction to this scheme.
Whoever speaks for the Surrey County Council I hope will be able to allay the fears of those who live in that part of Surrey in regard to the construction of the proposed new road. I think it is very important that before the scheme promoted by this Bill is proceeded with, due and adequate provision should be made for the poor people and the workpeople who will be displaced if the new road is constructed.

Mr. SHERWOOD: I beg to second the Motion.
One has heard so much to-night about the amenities of Surrey that one is almost inclined to feel jealous. I cannot speak on this matter from the point of view of the expert. The only place where I have lived in Surrey is Barnes, and I know the High Street. I do not wish—and here my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will agree with me—that Part IX of the Bill should disappear altogether, but I
think that the simpler way is to do the widening in the High Street itself. After all, there is a great deal in sentiment. You have here an old, historic road, with, on one side, old and crumbling property which ought to Dome down, where every house and every shop has sufficient background to enable the road to be set back without going right through the middle of other property. The hon. Member for Richmond (Sir N. Moore) referred to a school, but, if the proposed new road is taken straight through what is known, I believe, as Vinyard Park—though there is no vine in it—it simply means that that very important school is brought to the side of the main road, which is not the place for a school; they are building schools off the main road now. It involves going round the back of High Street and leaving a narrow strip of an island with three cross sections in a distance of less than 400 yards—streets converging on to the very street that the Surrey County Council are trying to escape. Moreover, if there is one danger in the parish of Barnes and Mortlake, it is the level crossing, but the proposed new street that will run out behind the High Street will come out on to the Lower Richmond Road close to Sheen Lane crossing, still leaving the crossing intact. Sheen Lane is one of the two connecting roads between the Lower Richmond Road and the Upper Richmond Road, but the level crossing is still to be left, and also a blind corner turning into the Lower Richmond Road. Already it has been agreed to cut off the green—a corner of the park, as I call it—in the Lower Richmond Road, and I submit that the simpler and more economical way is the widening of the southern or western side of Mortlake High Street. I would like every Member of the House to go down and walk along Mortlake High Street towards the Lower Richmond Road and out towards Richmond, and there see the proposal. You have two connecting roads—White Hart Lane on the one hand, and Sheen Lane on the other—between the two main roads, namely, the Lower Richmond Road and the Upper Richmond Road, still leaving the level crossing and bringing the proposed new street nearer to the crossing. I submit that the most economical and efficient way from the point of view of traffic is to wipe out the western or southern side of Mortlake High Street from the end
of Avondale Road in Barnes to the green and the corner of the park. That would give a good road without demolishing good property, but only rotten property that ought to have been pulled down years ago.

Mr. EDE: I ask the House to reject this Instruction. With all due respect to my two hon. Friends, I cannot help feeling that this is precisely the kind of point that ought not to be submitted by anyone to the Imperial Parliament of the British Empire. We are waiting tonight to deal with matters actually extending from China to Peru, and we are held up in order that we may discuss about 600 yards of a Surrey suburban street. We almost merit, I think, the description given by Byron of Napoleon:
One moment of the mightiest, and again
On little objects with like firmness fixt;
Extreme in all things!
I want to say quite frankly that the scheme which we are being asked to reject is a good one, and I suggest that, having received, by 23 votes to one, the approval of the Barnes Urban District Council, and having been passed, again with a minority of one, by the Surrey County Council, consisting of 93 members, it ought to be passed by this House, because the two minorities of one consisted of the same person, who, I believe, has supplied the brief for the two speeches to which we have just listened—[Interruption.] At any rate the same gentleman has been seen in close consultation with the two speakers. We may appreciate his pertinacity. I do, for he is a valued colleague of mine on the Surrey County Council, and I can only hope that he will be as zealous in good works as in this case he has been in had. A professor living in Mortlake High Street has suggested that another line ought to be taken. If we proposed to widen Mortlake High Street—and many hon. Members who have been to see the Universities Boat Race must have passed along Mortlake High Street—we should have to do two things. On the north side we should have to take down Watney, Combe, Reid and Company's brewery, and, after the disastrous debate of the Liquor Traffic Prohibition Bill last Friday, that establishment, apparently, has a new lease of life for some
years to come, and is probably one of the most valuable frontages in the whole country. On the south side it would be necessary to interfere with the entrance to one of the most historic churches in the county, and also to take down a couple of public houses.
With some knowledge of dealing with highway improvements, I venture to suggest that any proposal to interfere with the entrance to a historic church, and put it back practically on to the main road, so that the traffic on Sundays, when the sermon is being delivered, will keep the people awake instead of letting them take their usual slumber, would be highly resented by the inhabitants of the district, while it is by no means certain that the taking down of a couple of public houses would not cost far more in compensation than would have to be paid for the property at the back. With regard to the school, for eight years I taught in Mortlake, so I may be presumed at least to know a little about the accommodation there. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Junior Member for Oldham. (Mr. J. Wilson) said that this was the largest school in the district. As a matter of fact, it is not the largest school in the district. There was a time when it was, but that was when Mortlake was a small place. Mortlake is now bigger than Richmond, and there are at least two other schools in the parish which are larger than this. At present Mortlake High Street receives the children from this school through a series of narrow footpaths which rejoice in such names as Tinderbox Alley and Mullins Path. The names themselves give some indication of the kind of openings that these are, and it is infinitely more dangerous for them to debouch on the main road through narrow paths like that, all of a heap, than to come along reasonably wide roads.
I cannot help thinking that the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Sherwood), in his accurate description of things as they are, forgot that this House has assented to the creation of two new bridges over the Thames, one slightly to the west of the road in question and the other leading again over the Thames at Richmond, and the effect of the building of those two bridges will be to bring along this road, and to divert from going along the Upper Richmond Road from the
Lower Richmond Road, a lot of traffic desiring to get to Richmond and beyond. The result will be that this road will be increasingly used as a line of through traffic. The opponents of the scheme have christened this the Mortlake By-pass Road. No one with any authority suggests that it is a by-pass road. The northern part of the road is to be used for traffic coming London-wards, and the southern part of the road is to be used for traffic going towards Richmond. This property at the back is a very higgledy-piggledy property. It goes back to the days when Mortlake was a collection of market gardens, when people erected labourers' cottages wherever they liked on the boundaries of their own property, and connected them in this very narrow and straggling path called Vineyard Path. Eighty-six dwellings are to be demolished. The council are preserving, I think rightly, the whole of the frontages on the new road, and they propose to erect 126 in place of the 86 that are being demolished. I am authorised by the Barnes Urban Council to say that the existing tenants who are dispossessed will be granted, in the process of displacement and re-housing, all the privileges with regard to rent under the Rent Restriction Acts that they now enjoy.
I am sure that, in doing that the Council are doing nothing more than the Committee would demand for these people. The scheme enables a very much needed improvement to be carried out at very little cost, it enables a much needed housing improvement and a very essential highway improvement to be carried out, the local authorities concerned being willing to meet the existing tenants as generously as can be demanded of them. I ask the House to allow these Clauses in Part IX to go to Committee. If, when it gets to Committee, the pledges that I have given have not been redeemed, the Bill must come back here, and it would then be open to hon. Members to raise opposition, and I am sure the House would insist that pledges given openly in the House should be honoured.

Mr. JAMES WILSON: After my hon. Friend's assurance, I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — MINING INDUSTRY (WELFARE FUND) BILL.

Postponed Proceeding on Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," resumed.

Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. SHINWELL: When our proceedings were interrupted, I was about to relate the circumstances that led to the introduction of this Bill. In 1920 the Government of the day embodied in the Mining Industry Act provision for social welfare in the mining districts, and the proposed social amenities were based on a financial provision of a penny per ton on the output of coal. That provision operated for five years and automatically expired in 1925, but the scheme had been so eminently successful and had met with such general agreement in the industry and in the localities where schemes had been provided, that the late Government decided to continue it, and provision was made to continue the Miners' Welfare Fund on the same financial basis for a further period of five years. That 10 years period expired at the end of last year, and it now becomes necessary to ask the consent of the House to proceed with the Miners' Welfare Fund for a further period of five years, making 15 years in all.
I think there will be general agreement that the operations resulting from the Miners' Welfare Fund have not only proved thoroughly beneficial as regards those directly employed in the industry, but of great social value to their dependants, and I should assume that the wide range of schemes of a social character varying, as they do, from the provision of mining institutes of a recreational character to mining research, would commend itself to the House and to the industry, and in these circumstances would receive general approbation. It was the Coalition Government of 1920 who made a beginning in this direction, the late Government who continued it, and now it is left to the Labour Government to continue along that path. There has been no disagreement whatever. Much has been done in the direction of providing social amenities of a very wide character. Perhaps the House will permit me very shortly to indicate in a little detail the nature of the schemes already provided.
In the field of recreation there have been provided 618 indoor schemes—institutes, halls, clubs, libraries, including contributions for the purchase of books, and swimming baths. In outdoor schemes there have been provided recreation and sports grounds, playing fields, swimming pools and colliery bands, to the number of 583 in all.
Then as regards pit welfare of a minor character, the fund has provided cycle sheds to give accommodation for the cycles which the men use in travelling to and from work and the very necessary provision of drying rooms and shelters at the pithead, and in addition the provision in some eases of drinking water underground. Then there has been a very wise provision of pithead baths and canteens. It is true that a stimulus was given to the pithead bath scheme through the mining royalties levy which was first promoted in 1926. I do not propose to speak upon the general operation of the mining royalties levy scheme, but provision is made in the Miners' Welfare Fund for an annual grant amounting approximately to £150,000, approximately 50 per cent. of which is attributable to interest on investments, supplementary to the financial basis upon which the provision for pithead bathe rests.
May I, for a moment, digress to indicate the great social value of pithead baths accommodation? There was undoubtedly, up to a few years ago, some prejudice, even in enlightened mining localities, against the provision of baths. That has entirely disappeared. Instead of prejudice we have enthusiasm, and now it is impossible to cope with the demands made upon the Miners' Welfare Fund and the mining royalties levy in the direction of further provision of pithead baths. Everything is being done to meet the demands, but on the whole the progress is somewhat slow. Then provision has been made for the purpose of erecting hospitals and the endowment of these institutions, to the number of 56 schemes. These, of course, are very costly propositions, but no one who has visited any of those excellent institutions provided in various parts of the coalfields would deny that the money has been wisely spent. Then there have been 37 schemes for the provision of convalescent homes. There can be no doubts
about the general approval of those institutions. I have myself visited, as many hon. Members have done, some of the institutions, and I am bound to say that not only are they excellently managed and commendable to those who use them, but they compare favourably with similar institutions throughout the country. In some districts much of the allocation has been used for the purpose of providing these institutions in preference to recreational schemes of another character.
As an indication of the variety of schemes provided I may point out that there are 31 schemes for district nursing services and 71 ambulance services. I come now to the question of education. There are 161 schemes which range from lectures and scholarships to the establishment and equipment of centres for junior technical instruction. I will say a word on that head in order to correct any false impression that might be created in making our demand for a continuance of this scheme, that education of a technical character is provided in the various mining institutions. I am speaking of educational institutes which have been erected throughout the coalfields and their devotion to research, which relates not only to safety—and much has been done in that direction and must continue to be done if we are to deal satisfactorily with the problem of safety in the mines—but, in addition, provision has been made for education which is bound eventually to redound to the credit and advantage of the industry on its economic and industrial side, in imparting qualifications of a technical character to those about to enter the mines as, for example, education of the boys who are about to enter the mines or who have already accepted employment in the mines, and educational facilities of a somewhat more advanced character for mining students.
Without entering too much into detail, I feel disposed to make reference to the excellent work that is being done in connection with safety research conducted by the Safety in Mines Research Board associated with the Mines Department. From the Miners' Welfare Fund there has been devoted annually approximately £50,000 for research. We have the very excellent institution at Buxton, which is
well known to many hon. Members; we have the splendidly equipped laboratories at Sheffield; and, moreover, we have the contributions which are from time to time made from the mining classes at the various universities. The experiments in relation to explosions and explosives and cognate subjects conducted by the experts employed by the Safety in Mines Research Board have been of great value to the industry as a whole. I have indicated the very wide field over which the Miners' Welfare Fund is permitted to roam. I come to the question of whether it is regarded as essential to continue the fund on its present basis. It is true that a very large sum of money has been raised—round about £9,000,000—since the inception of the scheme.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: £10,500,000.

Mr. SHINWELL: My hon. Friend knows that £10,500,000 includes the amount raised from the mining royalties levy and the interest on investments. I am giving the approximate figure actually raised by a levy of a penny per ton upon coal. Approximately, £9,000,000 has been raised, and four-fifths of that amount has been devoted to district allocations, one-fifth being retained by the Central Fund. Much of the educational work and the contribution to the pit-head baths schemes come from the Central Fund. It is equally true that there are unexpended balances amounting to nearly £2,000,000, and because of that it has been suggested that the fund is sufficiently high to make it unnecessary to proceed further, at all events, in the present financial crisis. The sole reply to that is, that although many schemes have been provided, as I have indicated, much more remains to be provided. We have not exhausted the limits of social activity, social recreation, education and research in the mining communities of this country.
For example, there have been provided pit-head baths, but unless the owners of the collieries concerned are prepared to offer a substantial contribution, canteens cannot be provided. Canteens are a very important adjunct to pit-head baths. I pay tribute, and it is fair that I should, to many colliery owners who have in the past five years made handsome contributions towards the provision of canteens.
In that field much more remains to be done, and money is required for the purpose. Where indoor schemes exist, such as recreation halls, which satisfy the needs of the miners themselves, recreative facilities of an outdoor character must be provided for the children of the miners. Schemes have been proposed from time to time by the districts, and many of these wants remain unappeased. I could indicate, if it were necessary, much work that might be done by the Miners' Welfare Central Committee and the district committees in those very beneficial directions, but I will content myself with what has been said and assume that there is general agreement. The work having proved so satisfactory up to now, we ought not at this stage to put up a barrage to the provision of social amenities for those who live in mining communities.
Appeals have been made from time to time for co-operation among owners and men in this great national industry. I am sure that those appeals have often fallen upon unresponsive ears. That may be attributable to the economic conditions that surround the mining problem, but in the field of social activity there is whole-hearted co-operation. Even in times of dispute, dissension, and of bitter strife in the mining industry, it is possible to meet both sides on a common platform when an institute is being opened or pithead baths are being provided. I have participated in these very homely gatherings from time to time. It is an indication of what might be done in the direction of further co-operation in the mining industry.
I appeal to the House not to bring to an end this excellent social work or, for that matter, to impede its progress in any direction. It ought not to be limited; it ought to be stimulated. The time has not yet arrived when we can afford to bring to an end the excellent work begun by the Coalition Government in 1920, supported by the Tory Government in 1925, and fortified, we hope, by the Bill to which I now ask the House to give a Second Reading.

Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Gentleman has commended the Bill to the House in a review of the history and the activities of the Miners' Welfare Fund with which, probably, most of us would be in agreement. He has reminded
me, though I did not need it, that I was responsible for piloting one of these Bills through the House. It is true. I was responsible for inviting the House to approve the Bill which was passed in 1925, and I was then able to come to the House and to say that the proposal to continue the Act which was originally passed in 1920 was one which had the unanimous support of the miners and mineowners in this country. I should like to ask a question of the hon. Member, who said that, by leave of the House, he wished to reply to points raised in the discussion. I should like to know whether he is equally fortunate and is able to come to the House with an agreed recommendation from both the parties in this industry? That is an important matter. If there is agreement, if he is able to tell us that there is an agreement, the House will probably pass the Bill without any further discussion, because this is not a levy upon the general taxpayer, except in so far as, under the Coal Act of last year, all these charges are passed on to the general taxpayer in one way or another.

Mr. BATEY: That applies to all industries.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Except in so far as that is possible, this is a charge which falls upon the industry to the extent of one penny per ton of coal raised. I take it that at times when the minimum wage is not operative, 85 per cent. comes out of wages and 15 per cent. out of profits, but when you get down to the minimum wage it is true that the coalowners pay for the time being the whole of the levy.

Mr. BATEY: Do not worry about them.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: What I am pointing out to the House is that this is a substantial charge which falls upon the industry. If the Minister is able to say, here and now: "I have, as you had five years ago, complete agreement in the industry, substantial agreement in the industry, between miners and mineowners that this Bill should go through," the House would probably be prepared to pass the Bill without any further discussion. If the hon. Member is able to say that there is such agreement, I am prepared to sit down and say no more, except to give my blessing
to the agreement, as I did to the agreement of five years ago.

Mr. SHINWELL: I am quite willing to give to the House the result of my discussion with both parties in the industry, if the House desires, but I should have preferred not to do it at this stage.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think it would have been very convenient if the hon. Member had recited to the House the result of his discussion, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill. I believe in being very frank with the House in proposing a Bill of this kind. I probably fight very hard, but I have never been accused of a want of frankness. The last time that I came to the House with a Bill of this kind, and with the Cotton Bill, I told the House exactly what my negotiations had been with the parties, and I was able to produce an agreement. It would have been convenient and more frank if the hon. Member had stated in opening his speech exactly what negotiations he had had with the Mining Association and with the Miners' Federation, and had told us how far there was agreement, if indeed any agreement has been made, and how far there was disagreement. It is not treating the House quite fairly to tell us that a great many good things arose out of the agreement in the past, if in fact there is no agreement at the present time. It would have been much better had the hon. Member told us exactly what negotiations he has had and how far there is agreement or disagreement. If I had been introducing the Bill, I will not put it any higher than this, I should have felt it to be my duty to make such a statement to the House.

Mr. SHINWELL: The right hon. Gentleman is shifting his ground. He first asked if we had reached any substantial measure of agreement.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Certainly.

Mr. SHINWELL: On that I was not prepared to reply at once.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Why not?

Mr. SHINWELL: Now, the right hon. Gentleman asks what is the nature of the discussions and negotiations? That is an entirely different matter.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I put two questions. I am entitled, and the House is entitled, to put those questions to the hon. Member. I asked him whether he had got agreement, and I said, and I think the House will agree with me, that if he was able to answer "yes" to that question, we could close the Debate and give him a Second Reading of the Bill by common consent. He is not able to answer "yes" to that question, therefore the House is entitled to know, and, indeed, was entitled to know when he opened the Debate, how far, if at all, there is agreement, or how far there is disagreement. That makes all the difference in this matter. If the hon. Member is asking the House merely to implement an agreement, that is one thing, but if he asks the House to impose a charge upon an industry, a charge about which there is not an agreement, then, quite obviously, it is the duty of the House to consider the question very closely. I am bound to assume, if the hon. Member says that there is no agreement, that there is disagreement.

Mr. SHINWELL indicated dissent.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Or that there is not agreement on what the hon. Member is presenting to the House.

Mr. SHINWELL indicated dissent.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If he says there is agreement, we will give him his Bill at once. One is bound to look at a matter which comes up for review in the ordinary course and which imposes a charge on the industry. This is a time when every one will admit that one has to scan very closely the merits of a proposal to impose or to continue a charge on this industry, or any industry in this country. No one has put that more emphatically than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he said that to impose any further burden on industry would be the last straw. Therefore, the hon. Member in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, in the absence of agreement, is bound to show to the House two things, (1) that this is a charge which the industry can reasonably afford to pay and that ought reasonably to be imposed upon the industry, and (2) that the charge imposed is not merely desirable but essential, and that the sum of money which he is seeking to raise is not more than is
sufficient for that purpose. I am sure that the majority of hon. Members will agree that it would be a, wicked thing to impose on any industry to-day a charge in excess of what is absolutely necessary in discharge of an obligation.

Mr. SUTTON: It is not an additional charge. It is not beyond what they have paid during the last 10 years.

10.0 p.m.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That may be so, but the charge comes to an end this year and the hon. Member is asking Parliament to continue the charge. Therefore, we are bound to scrutinise the charge as a charge which we are invited to impose by the authority of an Act of Parliament, and it does not make any difference, or it does not make a great difference, whether that charge has been imposed in the past or whether it is a new charge, unless the hon. Member can show that the charge is necessary and is not too large for his purpose. I agree as to the excellence of many of the things that have been done, but I am not sure that in every case I should agree that the money has been spent to the best advantage. In reading the report it seems to me that the administrative charges are rather high. That, however, is a committee point, and if I am wrong I shall no doubt be corrected by my Noble Friend, who is a member of the committee. Let us assume that the objects are sound and that the expenditure has been reasonably economical, the hon. Member has Bow to show to the House that it is necessary and desirable to raise £5,000,000 more from this industry for the purposes of the Act. The purposes of the Act are strictly laid down:
There shall be constituted a fund to be applied for such purposes connected with the social well-being, recreation, and conditions of living of workers in or about coalmines and with mining education and research as the Board of Trade, after consultation with any Government Department concerned, may approve.
We are concerned with nothing outside these statutory provisions, and, that being so, it behoves us to see how much money there is in this fund and how much it is necessary to impose a new charge of £5,000,000 a year. I have the report of the Miners' Welfare Fund, which was produced as recently as 31st January last, and the finance of the fund is set out at the beginning of the report. It says that
there is a balance to-day to the credit of the fund of £2,232,912—a pretty substantial balance. It is true that a considerable part of that balance has been allocated to schemes which have been put forward and have been approved, but, even allowing for all the schemes which have been approved by the committee and upon which money has not yet been expended, there remains an unallocated balance of £893,000. That is a substantial sum. That, however, is not the whole story, because these are the accounts at the beginning of the year and there is still to come in and to be added to that sum the levy of one penny per ton for the year ending 31st March, 1931. Hon. Members will observe that the unallocated balance of the Fund is not merely £893,000, but £1,893,000. I have every sympathy with the work which the Welfare Committee is doing and the Welfare Committee has certainly not been ungenerous or unready in approving schemes. I have never heard the charges brought against that committee which are brought against the Treasury Bench by local authorities and by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who are all busy putting up schemes and the Treasury Bench is busy turning them down. That charge has not been made against my Noble Friend and the Members of the committee; in fact, they approve schemes as fast as they get them. Therefore, the Secretary for Mines is asking us to-day to impose a charge of £5,000,000 more when the Fund has an unallocated balance of £1,893,000.
I say frankly that if the Bill is given a Second Reading, it will have to be our duty in Committee to examine the Bill and the Minister very closely, and to require estimates from him as to exactly what schemes are still to be brought forward and what commitments he will have to meet. It is no use saying that the scope of usefulness of the expenditure has not been exhausted—that is not good enough—and it is entirely inconsistent with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other day. We are dealing with a situation when our first duty is to husband our resources, and this Bill will certainly require from the hon. Member a clear statement of the schemes that are likely to be brought
forward and the demands which will be made upon the Fund. It is the plain duty of the Committee, unless they get a clear answer, to limit the charge imposed by this Bill to such a sum as the Secretary for Mines can show is necessary and to such a period of time as is necessary. He is asking to-night for a cheque for £5,000,000. In happier days that might be all right, but it is not the spirit in which you can approach the spending of money which is a charge upon the industry, or upon the public or upon anyone, at the present time. You must justify any levy you make. The hon. Member has not said anything yet which justifies this House in assuming that the £1,900,000, roughly, is not going to be sufficient for his purpose. He should have spent this £1,900,000 which he has already—

Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSON: You know it has been spent.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I know that there are not schemes involving an expenditure of £1,900,000.

Mr. RICHARDSON: All the money that is being spent can be doubled and trebled in exactly the same way in order to meet the necessities of places which have not yet these additional advantages.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Let us have particulars; the Secretary for Mines has given us no particulars. You have a most generous Committee which is not slow in spending, and every locality is entitled to send in its scheme. Presumably they are not backward in sending in their schemes. Yet there is an unallocated balance of roughly £1,900,000.

Mr. SHINWELL: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would desire me to correct a misapprehension. The unallocated sum is not £1,900,000. The net unallocated sum is approximately £688,000.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think the hon. Member is wrong. I am quoting his own report. May I refer him to the report of his Committee, page 1? It says there:
But, as we have explained before, a large proportion of this sum is already especially allocated, only £893,000 of it not being so allocated.
Then the report goes on:
Much of this is no doubt earmarked by district committees.
Yes, but that means that the district committees have their eye on this sum and propose to submit schemes. They have got the schemes, but the schemes have not yet been brought forward.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: A large number of those schemes are in the hands of the district committees, and they are not recorded, many of them. If all the schemes had been sent into the central committee and had been statistically compiled by the central authority, the money available would be far exceeded.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If that is so, it is a great pity that the Minister does not tell us. I have to act, and Parliament has to act, upon this report. In addition to the unallocated balance, there is £1,000,000 which is coming in this year—[Interruption.] What we have to justify is that it is a reasonable thing to put this further charge on the industry, and that there are necessarily schemes to be charged out of it. I should have thought that with a million, and three-quarters of the sum unallocated—[Interruption]—I repeat, unallocated, at the present time, the business-like thing to do would be to follow the line which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has commended to this House and not to collect some money and then to see how we can spend it, but to find out what scheme it is that we are out to finance and then make the levy fit the scheme. I think that that is a not unreasonable thing to put before the House, that is the view which I put to the House, and that is the view which I shall put to the House in respect of all matters which involve either a public charge or a charge upon an industry.
I am bound to put one other question to the hon. Gentleman. He has said that he seeks to continue the Act because its sphere of usefulness can operate fully for the next five years. I ask him specifically, does he mean the sphere of usefulness under the terms laid down in the Act? I have special reason for asking that, because it is quite plain what his Bill seeks to do. His Bill seeks to continue for five years the levy of a penny per ton for the express purposes set out in the Act of 1920, and those purposes are limited by the kind of work which is at present being operated by the Committee.

Mr. SHINWELL indicated assent.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Then I am much interested, because the hon. Gentleman will be able to correct a misapprehension which has got abroad, not through any machination of mine, but through a report which has appeared in a paper not generally wrong. I mean the "Daily Herald." I had not seen it myself, but my attention has been drawn to it, and I want to give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity of correcting it. The "Daily Herald" said, on 13th February:
Steady progress is being made towards the realisation of the miners' ideal of a special scheme of pensions for their industry. The matter has now reached a stage for examination of details prior to the introduction of the necessary legislation. This follows a discussion between the Government and the Miners' Federation. Money for these pensions would be drawn mainly or wholly from the Miners' Welfare Fund, which has been built up by a levy of a penny per ton on coal. Legislation would be necessary, as the fund can only be used at the moment for the social well-being, recreation, and conditions of living, and for milling education and research.
Then it goes on—
The miners' President has said that it had been hoped to deal with this matter in the Bill now before Parliament to continue the levy, but that would cause too much delay. A separate Measure was to be introduced later by Mr. Shinwell.

Mr. SHINWELL indicated dissent.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman says that that is wrong. We have an assurance that he has no such intention in his mind, and that will correct a report which ought never to have obtained currency. It would be a most improper thing for the hon. Gentleman to propose to continue this levy if he had it in his mind that the purpose of this levy was not the purpose laid down in the Act, but was to provide some pensions scheme. If he had anything of that kind in his mind he would have to come forward with a Bill to provide a levy for the purpose of pensions. I am glad to see that he agrees with me, and I am glad to have his assurance that there is not one word of truth in this report—which I myself had not heard of until this extract was handed to me—that he was proposing to use the Miners' Welfare Fund for the
purpose of pensions. I am very interested to hear it.
I do not propose to argue the question of the giving of pensions to any industry, and it would be quite out of order to do so under this Bill, and it would be illegal under the Act. We have the hon. Gentleman's assurance that he has not the least intention of using, during the currency of five years, any part of the Welfare Fund except for the strict purpose laid down by the Bill. If he gives the House that assurance, then I should not myself be opposed to the Bill obtaining a Second Reading now on the clear understanding—of coarse the hon. Gentleman will reply to the points already raised—that when the Bill goes into Committee it is his intention to limit the levy strictly to the purposes of the Act. In that case I think the House probably would be well advised to give the Bill a Second Reading now, but on the very clear understanding that in Committee, where this can be more fully dealt with, the strictest examination is made of the amount of the fund and the need for any further charge for the specific purposes of this Bill. The House should be perfectly clear, if it is to send the Bill to Committee, that it will limit both the amount which is charged and the period for which it is to be charged to the minimum sum which is necessary for these requirements, and should be perfectly free, when the Bill comes hack for Report and Third Reading, to act in whatever way it thought right. I am afraid I have spoken at some length. I should have spoken at less length if the hon. Gentleman had, in opening, disclosed what negotiations he had had, how far he bad reached agreement, how far the actual schemes for which he wants this money had proceeded, and why he cannot first spend the money which is now at his disposal and come to the House for his further requirements when he is nearer exhausting his treasury.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: As one of the mining members of this House, and on behalf of the Miners' Federation, I quite appreciate the steps taken by the Secretary for Mines in continuing this Welfare Fund. The question whether the payments to the fund should be extended or not is determined by two considerations. The first is that the spend-
ing of the fund in the past has been satisfactory; the second is that the work for which the fund is spent is still unfinished. I am quite satisfied, if these considerations are applied to the fund, that there can only be one answer, and that is, that not only ought this Bill be given a Second Reading, but it ought to be passed through all its stages as quickly as possible. The Secretary for Mines in a very fine statement proved conclusively that the work hitherto done by the spending of this fund has been exceptionally beneficial to the miners and his family.
It will be as well to clear up at once the idea that when you build baths at a pithead the sole cost goes on this fund. In the case of almost all the pithead baths in Lancashire the men have contributions to pay, in addition to the fund. I think that that applies to all the baths throughout the country. Before this fund is brought to an end, any burden now resting on the miner with his lower wages ought to be taken off him. We think the cost of all these schemes ought to be borne solely by this fund and the miner ought not to be asked to pay for them at all. As the result of this fund we got something in Lancashire which we had badly needed for a long while, and we have not got all we want. There is much welfare work to be done from now on.
I am sorry that we canont speak on the question of pensions. If we could, I should have liked to have asked the Secretary for Mines to increase the levy to 2d. per ton for pensions. I am sorry we cannot do it. The party that supports the taking of 6d. and 7d. per ton for royalties ought not to object to a ld. or 2d. per ton for miners' pensions. Looking backwards to 1920, no member of this House can say that the money spent then has not been justified, or that there is no need for further welfare work in the mining community. It is when we look either backwards or forwards that we feel, as miners, that it would be wrong to discontinue this Welfare Fund. I find some doubt as to where the coalowners stand on this question. I sincerely hope that they are not opposed to this proposal. In 1925 they strongly supported it and, by the way, the Bill of 1925 received its Second Reading in less than five minutes. On that occasion Sir Beddoe Rees said:
We have watched the operations of this fund, and, whatever may be said as to the Sankey Fund, we certainly approve of the payments out of the fund and its use for the benefit of the miners. On the owners' side, we have watched the development of the fund and seen its administration and we are in agreement with it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1925; col. 193, Vol. 186.]
I do not see on what ground the owners can change their views to-day. It is not going to be suggested that one penny per ton cannot be afforded to-day by the coal-owners, because it must be remembered that the miners pay the greatest share of that penny like all the other pennies. I find that when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) brought forward the Bill of 1920 he said that this fund was to be devoted to improving the social welfare of the great mining communities. We, as miners, say that there is still need for more welfare work in every mining village, and since there is that need, and since the industry can afford this penny per ton, there can be no sound reason for opposing the Second Reading of the Bill.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: The House, I am sure, must be impressed with the fact which has been brought to its recollection that on the two former occasions on which this proposal came before it there was complete agreement. This is the first occasion on which it has been evident that there is some criticism of the proposal in different parts of the House. Nothing could be more unfortunate than that, especially at a time when the industry is going through one of its most trying periods, and is only slowly emerging from one of its most dangerous crises. As the Secretary for Mines in his closing sentences indicated, this subject has stood outside all disputes and I think I am right in saying that during stoppages of work, some of the most pleasant incidents have been the meetings of representatives of employers and employed in functions connected with the Miners' Welfare Fund. when all other activities have been suspended. That is evidence of an atmosphere of friendliness and of agreement between those who are sometimes, unfortunately, hostile parties although they are really partners in the industry, which I hope will be maintained.
I rise to make the suggestion that if, as is very likely, the House gives a
Second Reading to the Measure, there should be on the part or the Minister responsible, and, on the side of the mine-owners also, a very strenuous and wholehearted effort to arrive at agreement between themselves before the Measure is considered in Committee. That would be an unmitigated advantage to the industry as a whole. It is quite evident, even from the brief discussion of to-night, that the Floor of this House is a singularly unfit place for the discussion of the details of a matter of this kind. It is much better settled in the friendly atmosphere of partners in the industry endeavouring to arrive at the largest measure of common agreement in the circumstances of the times. It is only because I hope that that effort will be made wholeheartedly, that I venture to make the suggestion, not only to the House, but to the industry.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: I recognise to the full the good work that has been done by this fund in the past, and it is not my intention to oppose this Bill. I want to point out, however, that it is not what might be called money for nothing. This fund is a charge upon the industry, and the money has to be found somewhere. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) said that there were only two things to be considered. One is whether the money has been well spent in the past, and the second is whether there is more work to be done in future. That is all very well, but if we were all to order our lives according to those two tenets, without looking where the money was to come from, we should soon find ourselves in the Bankruptcy Court.

Mr. G. MACDONALD: I said also that the industry could afford it.

Sir S. ROBERTS: I am afraid that hon. Members opposite do not realise, as some of us have to realise, the condition of the industry. Since a year ago, when we discussed the conditions in the mining industry, I can honestly say that things are a good deal worse than they were then. This penny per ton seems such a little thing hardly worth bothering about, but I ask hon. Members to look at it in this way. If there is a concern producing 1,000,000 tons of coal in a year, one day the secretary of the company will have to produce a cheque for signature for a figure amounting to
about £4,000, and if that company is deeply indebted to its bankers, it may possibly happen that that cheque will be the one which the bank will say they will not honour. Then that concern may be seized by the debenture holders or go into liquidation. I wish I could make hon. Members realise the terrible condition of the industry and that practically no company is making a profit. I admit that some are, but the big majority are not, and they have to meet charges, whatever those charges are, either by drawing on the reserves that they have put aside in the past—and they are going very rapidly in most concerns—or by getting further and further into debt with their banks. I am not making these remarks in order to oppose the Bill, but to try and impress upon hon. Members opposite that you cannot get this sort of thing out of an industry and put further burdens on it without somebody suffering somewhere, that when losses are being made, as they are at the present time, these burdens will in the end mean the shutting up of concerns and the loss of employment to the men. I am not saying this in any bitter spirit, but simply to point out that all these charges, whatever they may be, are a burden, and although I shall not oppose this Bill—

Mr. HAYCOCK: You are supporting it now.

Sir S. ROBERTS: I am supporting the Bill, but I am saying that those of us who have to pay will pay realising that it is a burden, but so far as this fund is concerned, I, personally, shall pay it cheerfully.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: I do not intend to intervene for more than a moment or two, but as a member of the committee which spends this very large sum of money I think I can place the House in possession of some information. I ought to make it clear that I am speaking entirely for myself, and not as representing my colleagues on the committee. With all that the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill said about the spending in the past I agree. I have no doubt whatever that the fund has been an immense boon to the mining industry, and that the money has been well and wisely spent. Occasionally, no doubt,
there have been mistakes, but on the whole the money has been extremely carefully spent and has done a great deal of good to the industry.
But small as the figure of one penny a ton sounds, the fund has had an income, during its comparatively short life, of £10,500,000. That is a very large sum of money. The present Bill, against the Second Reading of which I shall not vote, will give it a further income of not less, probably, than £5,000,000, and possibly rather more, for the next five years. The field which the Miners' Welfare Fund is intended to cover has already, I feel, been covered to a very large extent. I quite agree with hon. Members opposite that it has not been fully covered, and that a good deal still remains to be done, but a great deal has been done. I believe we have very nearly covered the available ground as regards endowment for research, as regards the granting of scholarships at universities, and so forth. There is not much room for prudent expenditure in that direction. We have also, to a very large extent, covered the ground as regards the provision of facilities for recreation, and as regards the future of (research into safety work. There remains the question of the baths. Members will fully realise that the provision of baths does not depend entirely on this Welfare Fund; they are provided for, to the extent of more than £200,000 a year, by the levy on the royalty owners introduced by the Conservative Government.
I give it as a carefully considered opinion, and, as I say, I speak only for myself and not for the Committee, that if we enjoy this full income of £5,000,000 for the next five years we shall actually find it difficult to spend the whole of the money wisely and prudently and economically; and further, that supposing that income were reduced to a half for the first year, and to a quarter for the remaining four years of the period covered by the Bill, the work of the Miners Welfare Committee could be carried on unimpaired in its full usefulness. With that amount we could maintain the present allocation from the Welfare Fund to the baths fund and complete the scheme of baths, which I regard as by far and away the most important of the activities of the fund—we could carry on at something rather faster than the pre-
sent rate; we could continue to endow research; we could not, of course do as much as is being done now but that field has been to a very large extent covered, but we could continue the provision of recreation facilities where they are still required.
The Committee have always worked in the most complete harmony—there have not been two sides in the Committee—and I regard it as greatly regrettable that agreement has not been reached on this occasion. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the industry is now, for the first time, making difficulties about the continuance of the levy. An hon. Member opposite said this Bill passed in live minutes when it, last came before the House in 1925. The House should remember that 1925 was followed by 1926. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who was responsible?"] We need not go into that. The fact is that at the present time the coal industry is fighting for its very existence. Hon. Members must realise that it is in a serious position.

Mr. SUTTON: There were difficulties in the mining industry in 1925.

Mr. G. MACDONALD: Did not the Government in 1925 hand over £25,000,000 to the coal industry.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: Yes, that is quite true, but the hon. Member must find out from his own Front Bench whether they propose to come to the rescue of the industry by handing over another large sum. If they did, it would substantially alter the position, but hon. Members must realise that, at present, the industry is in a very serious condition. The employers have made a substantial contribution, and it is a fact that they are willing and anxious to meet the Secretary for Mines on this question. I say once more that I think the essential purpose of the Miners' Welfare Fund would still be carried on, even if the levy were substantially reduced.

Captain PEAKE: The House will, I think, recognise that if this Bill is allowed to go to a Committee, we shall want a full explanation of the amount of money that will be required. I do not see any reason why hon. Members should discuss this matter in a partisan spirit. The question has been raised as to whether the miners can afford this payment, and
I agree that it is difficult to trace what proportion of it will fall on the owners and what proportion will fall on the men.

Mr. TOM SMITH: Surely the hon. and gallant Member knows that the Miners' Welfare levy comes under the heading of costs other than wages?

Captain PEAKE: It is difficult to decide this question. Some say that if the wages rise above the minimum, the percentage is borne by the men. Others say that so long as wages are at the minimum, it is borne entirely by the owners. But even that is not a correct statement of the position, because an arbitrator who has to settle what is the agreed minimum percentage takes into account the gap between the proceeds of coal and the cost other than wages in arriving at a fair figure, so that even if wages are at the minimum, it still may be said that a great deal of the penny falls on the miners themselves. If it is taken that it all falls on the men, then it costs every man in the industry 23s. a year. If, on the other hand, it all falls on the owners, then it is costing the owners over the eight or nine years it has been in operation £9,000,000, and that happens to be exactly the sum which the industry itself has lost over the last five years. [Interruption.] I will not argue as to the incidence of this penny per ton, but the fact is that it does fall upon the industry.
Schemes involving heavy expenditure, however desirable they may be, will have to wait until prosperity returns.
Those are not my words; they are the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who went on, after saying what splendid work, as I am sure we all agree, he himself has done for the working classes:
If I ask for some temporary suspension, some temporary sacrifice, it is because I believe that it is necessary in order to make future progress possible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1931; cols. 447–8, Vol. 248.]
What we want to know from the Minister is this: Of the £9,500,000 expended, he himself, I think, has told us that some £4,000,000 has gone in recreational facilities—outdoor and indoor schemes; and some £2,500,000 upon health—convalescent homes, hospitals and so forth; works, that is to say, of a capital nature, which cost something like £6,500,000 of the
£9,500,000. What we want to know from the Minister is whether there are many of these capital schemes in hand to-day, whether there is need for many more of them, and whether the report which was published in the "Daily Herald" last Friday is totally untrue. May I just remind the hon. Gentleman once more that the "Daily Herald," being an inspired organ, I have no doubt, said only last Friday:
Steady progress is being made towards the realisation of the miners' ideal of a special scheme of pensions for their industry. The money for these pensions would be drawn mainly or wholly from the Miners' Welfare Fund.
Later on, it said:
A separate Measure was to be introduced later by Mr. Shinwell.
Is that statement totally without foundation? We want to be assured, before this Bill gets a Second Reading, that, in the first place, the Minister has negotiated and will negotiate if he can to obtain agreement between the two sides of the industry which are both interested in this matter. We want also to be assured that the Minister is not raising money by a subterfuge for some other scheme which he has at the back of his mind, and about which he is afraid to tell the House to-night.

Mr. MANDER: I rise to support very warmly the Second Reading of this Bill. It seems to me that it is the one bright spot that has appeared anywhere in connection with the mines of this country, and it would be lamentable if the opposition which has rather unexpectedly arisen to-night were to persist right to the end. In many industries it has been the custom for years past that amenities of this kind should be provided by the firm as a matter of course, but, unfortunately, owing to the unhappy history of the mining industry in the past, that side of it has been very seriously neglected. It was an inspiration when this proposal was originally brought forward many years ago, and we all know and appreciate the splendid amount of good that has been done in connection with it.
I am bound to say that I think some effective reply from the Ministerial Bench to the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington) will be necessary. After all, he speaks with real knowledge
of how this fund is being spent, and if he says that, according to his experience, there is going to be some difficulty in spending a further £5,000,000 wisely, while that may be only his individual opinion, he speaks with some authority, and we ought to have a clear statement from some other point of view. Some reference has been made to the question of pensions, and I am bound to say that in the ordinary way I should have been opposed to extending the ambit of this Bill to pensions, because I believe that the amount that would be available, if the other side of the activities were still being worked, would be so small as to make it hardly worth while. Certainly, there ought to be pensions, but I think that they need taking up quite apart from the provisions of this Bill. If there is anything in what the Noble Lord has said about the difficulty in spending the fund on the present activities, I do think that there is a case for considering whether the objects of the fund ought not to be extended, and, possibly, extended to pensions or something of the kind. It raises quite a new issue, and I think we want a good deal of light upon that question.
I support the Bill because I represent a number of miners who work in Cannock Chase. I know very well that it is their direct wish that I should support it on their behalf, and that is why I am speaking to-night. I have seen the excellent work that has been done by this fund in the Cannock Chase coal field, and in my own constituency, where there is not actually a mine, they have, in a village where many miners live, a children's playing ground which has given tremendous delight and satisfaction to the families of the miners. In fact, the only complaint I have heard is from the mothers, that the seats of the trousers of the children wear out very much quicker than they ought to do. I desire to associate myself very strongly with what has been said about the all too infrequent example that this has given of fruitful and happy co-operation between the two sides in the mining industry. I am certain, whether it is in mining or in any other industry, we are not going to return to full effectveness and commercial prosperity until we manage in some way to make industry a joint endeavour
in which both sides will throw in the best efforts they can. Here you have on a small scale a working example of how that spirit of goodwill can be effected in the mining industry, and to discourage it would be the utmost calamity. We want to see it extended on the widest possible front. I regretted that the Government did not find it possible to take a step forward last year and include in their. Bill some scheme for joint pit committees and co-operation in that direction. I support the example that has been given, and I am sure it is only a very small example of what might be done throughout the length and breadth of the industry if the proper steps were taken to associate intimately the miners with the conduct of this great industry. I support the Bill because I have seen the good work that it does and because I believe, in a small way, it is a real step forward to the new spirit of partnership in industry.

Mr. SHINWELL: The mild criticism which the introduction of this Bill has evoked calls for some reply, and perhaps I may, with the leave of the House, give it. The Noble Lord, who is a very valued member of the Miners' Welfare Committee, has expressed regret at the absence of agreement. If there has been no substantial agreement, no responsibility rests upon my shoulders. In October last I met the Mining Association and announced the Government's intention in respect to the fund and the need for its continuance. Thereupon the representatives of the Mining Association informed me that they proposed to consult with the Miners' Federation. On 16th December, in reply to a question, I announced quite definitely and specifically the Government's intention of introducing a Bill early this Session for the continuance of the Miners' Welfare Levy at the present rate, and I added:
I take this opportunity of informing, the industry of the Government's intentions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1930; col. 1029, Vol. 246.]
Since October, when I met the Mining Association, no representations of any sort or kind have been made to the Mines Department until last Friday, a fortnight after the Bill had been presented, when it was known, because of the Prime Minister's announcement last Thursday in respect to the course of business this
week, that it was coming on. There was then sent to the Mines Department an intimation from the Mining Association that they wished to be heard in regard to the progress of this Bill. That was the first intimation. I submit that if there is any responsibility for the failure to secure agreement, that responsibility does not devolve upon the shoulders of those associated with the promotion of this Measure, but with the representatives of the Mining Association. As it is, we propose to meet the representatives of the Mining Association early next week. We shall be glad to hear what they have to say, but I want to take this opportunity of making it quite clear that we are proceeding with this Measure. Unless some substantial reasons are adduced against the financial proposition embodied in the Measure we propose to continue the Bill with the existing financial provisions intact. In our judgment it is essential, if the excellent work applauded by all hon. Members who have spoken, is to be continued. Finance is essential. The only question which arises is whether in the next five years we can produce schemes which warrant the raising of £5,000,000.
The Noble Lord opposite, who is a member of the committee, has told the House that he is somewhat sceptical as to the ability of the committee to promote schemes which would warrant the expenditure of such a huge sum, but the House will have noted that he also said that he spoke for himself. He well knows that his view as to the capacity of the industry to promote further schemes of material benefit to the mining community is contested by other members of the committee and certainly by the Miners' Federation. I am sure there are many on the owners' side, not on the committee, throughout the industry, who believe it to be essential to continue the fund at its present level. One argument adduced by the Noble Lord related to the provision of pithead baths. That is a very unfortunate illustration. What are the facts? Since 1926, when the mining royalties levy was first raised, 42 pithead bath schemes have been promoted and completed, and 45 are still under construction. The present estimated annual programme of pithead bath accommodation is 36, but in the view of the Miners' Welfare Committee, of which the Noble Lord is a member, it will take 20 years
to complete the programme estimated to be necessary to provide pithead bath accommodation.

Captain PEAKE: May I interrupt the hon. Member? Is it not a fact that the miners' representatives on that committee object to the allocation of moneys other than royalties to the provision of pit-head baths?

Mr. SHINWELL: That is the first I have heard of it. The only allocation from the general fund to supplement the mining royalties levy for the purpose of providing pit-head baths is £150,000 annually, 50 per cent. of which comes directly from the central fund, the remainder being derived from interest on investments. That is the situation. If the rate of interest on investments declined there would have to be a further substantial contribution from the general fund. In any event there is substantial need for further pit-head baths. I do not doubt the ability to extend either the existing fund or the fund which may be raised in the course of the next five years. That is only relating to pit-head baths. As regards what the right hon. Gentleman said about unexpended balances, he was under a complete misunderstanding about the position. The unexpended balances amount in all to £688,000.

Mr. REMER: Can the hon. Gentleman say at what date that was?

Mr. SHINWELL: At the end of last year.

Mr. REMER: In reply to a question, he said it was on the 31st January.

Mr. SHINWELL: Possibly, that is correct. If I said that, it must be so.

Mr. REMER: That is very important because it means that another month's allocation has been spent. New money will be coming in at the end of March.

Mr. SHINWELL: Of course new money will be coming in and so will new schemes. The needs are increasing all the time. It is well known to all associated with the scheme. At any rate, it must be borne in mind, and no doubt the right hon. Gentleman overlooked the point, which is one of some substance, that there are annual charges which have to be borne by the general fund, and by the districts. There is the maintenance
of existing institutions. There are fixed charges necessitated by the maintenance of these institutions.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Are those charges to be met out of the unallocated balances?

Mr. SHINWELL: Offhand, I cannot say whether they are borne out of that particular amount, but the amount has definitely been allocated. It is true that further funds will be raised in the course of next year.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Gentleman says that there are a large number of charges. It is very important if he says that. The Committee say there are unallocated balances. I should think that that meant the charges are included in the balance of £2,000,000.

Mr. SHINWELL: There is no free money in the fund at all. Schemes are earmarked. It is well known that provision must be made for further schemes. I was about to point out in relation to the question of research that £50,000 annually is set aside for the purpose of research on safety in mines.
11.0 p.m.
I have been asked as to whether it is our intention to promote pensions' schemes at some subsequent date to be associated with the financial provisions of the scheme. It is true that the question of pensions has been discussed. We have found unexpected difficulties in promoting Measures for the purpose of providing funds to supplement voluntary pension schemes in the mining districts or to promote new schemes. For the time being, it is impossible to get any further on that subject. Clearly, no pension scheme can be provided at any subsequent date which can be chargeable to the existing fund unless as the result of complete agreement in the industry. This is by no means a novel proposition. On a previous occasion the Government with which the right hon. Gentleman was associated declared that they were prepared to agree to a wider basis in relation to social welfare in the promotion of entirely new schemes, if agreement was reached in the industry. The same proposition applies to the question of pensions, if the industry agrees.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am much obliged to the hon. Member. The House desires to get this matter cleared up. The hon. Member is asking for £5,000,000, that is, £1,000,000 per year for five years. I asked him, when he asks for £5,000,000, is he prepared to say: "I need the whole of the £5,000,000 for the schemes under the existing Act, and I have not in my mind any intention to set aside funds which will go afterwards to help pensions."

Mr. SHINWELL: I think I have replied to that question, quite clearly. First of all, in our view, there are many schemes yet to be provided, and there are many wants remaining unsatisfied in practically every mining district of the country. In some districts they have provided convalescent institutions, but they have left untouched the necessary field of recreative activities. In some districts they have provided pit-head baths, but they have provided no canteen accommodation. There are these considerations to be borne in mind throughout the whole field of activity for which the committee are responsible. As regards the question of pensions, I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that unless both sides in the industry agree to widen the scope of the scheme and to allocate any part of the money that may be provided in the course of the next five years for pensions, can any proposition be agreed to for the utilisation of the money for that purpose? If subsequently a pensions scheme is to be provided it can only be as the result of legislation for which this House would be entirely responsible.
It has not been the result of discourtesy on our part that an agreement has not been reached. An agreement may yet be reached, as the result of consultations with the Mining Association, but, having regard to the fact that our intentions were definitely and specifically announced in this House and to the Mining Association many weeks ago, we are not to be blamed for failure to reach agreement. In view of the fact that the Opposition have indicated their desire to support this Measure, both the official Opposition and the Liberal Opposition, I am quite content to accept that view, and in the event of the Opposition desiring to raise any point of substance in Committee we shall be very glad to hear what they have to say and to meet them with the utmost courtesy; but we must proceed with the
schemes which we regard as necessary in the interests of the mining community and, in our view, the largest possible amount that can be raised, without inflicting any undue burden upon the industry, requires to be raised in order to meet the wants of the mining community.

Colonel LANE FOX: I think it only fair to the Mining Association for someone to say that the hon. Member should have taken more trouble to secure agreement, which he might have secured and which is so very necessary. The Secretary for Mines cannot have taken much trouble to secure agreement. He has told us that he saw the Mining Association in October last and apparently made no further move to get into touch with them. Now he is surprised when they ask him to see them when this Bill is sprung upon them. I think it would have been in the interests of agreement if he had postponed this Measure for a few days while he talked the matter over with them. I hope we shall be able to secure agreement, but the course the hon. Member has taken will not make it easier. The hon. Member was not perfectly frank in his opening statement when he told us that there was no disagreement. It would have been better if he had laid his plans a little better and had obtained an agreement, which is so vital to the Welfare Fund.

Mr. CULVERWELL: The Secretary for Mines would have saved himself a lot of unpleasantness and bother if he had been a little more frank in introducing the Bill. If he had told us that there was a lack of agreement between himself and the mineowners the debate would have taken a different line. He has said that this money is to carry out schemes which the Welfare Committee have in view. We have only his uncorroborated ipse dixit for that statement. We have no proof that these schemes are in view, and in fact the hon. Member for Derby Western (Marquess of Hartington) has told us that these schemes cannot usefully be brought in: at any rate, that the whole of the money cannot be spent for the next five years in schemes which are desirable and which are an economical proposition. The House cannot accept the hon. Member's statement that the whole of this money can be usefully spent. We know that hon. Members opposite do not trouble about
the finances of industry, or of the country. One penny per ton on coal does not matter much to them, the ruin of the industry does not matter much to them. The Secretary for Mines made light of the burden which this experiment has cast upon the industry; and it is only an experiment as the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) in introducing the proposal, said:
We are proposing, in the nature of an experiment that the recommendation made by Mr. Justice Sankey and his colleagues should be followed.
The Secretary for Mines is taking too much for granted if he expects this House, after a few preliminary praises of the excellent work which has been accomplished by this expenditure of money, to pass a scheme which will enforce the payment of a further £5,000,000, during the course of the next five years as a matter of course. As a matter of fact this scheme was introduced as an experiment. I would ask hon. Members opposite who talk so glibly about the coal industry being able to bear any burden put upon it—I believe the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) would like to make the levy 2d. or 3d.—I would like to ask them and the Minister to ensure that the money raised is usefully spent. If the Minister finds that the schemes are not sufficient on which to expend the whole of the money that is raised, I would ask that he should take steps to lower the contribution.

Mr. REMER: I put a question to the Secretary for Mines dealing with the subject under discussion. I asked what amount stood to the credit of the Welfare Fund and the amount expended during 1930. The figures to 31st January last showed that the fund was in credit to the amount of £2,193,958. Now we are to add £5,000,000, plus another £1,000,000 which he will get before 31st March. This means that, in the five years from the passing of the Bill, he will have over £8,000,000 which the Noble Lord the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington) has told us quite conclusively the fund will not be able to spend.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether the Noble Lord has attended any of the meetings for the last 12 months?

Mr. REMER: I am surprised to hear that question after the compliment which the Minister paid to the Noble Lord on the way in which he had attended to the work of the fund. One of the objections which I have to the Bill is that it is one in a series of Bills which creates a fund. We create funds and we lose sight of the money subscribed to them; there is not the same scrutiny as there is when the money comes from the Treasury itself. We have an example later on the Order Paper of a deficit revealed in the Unemployment Insurance Fund. In this Bill we have an example of which a large surplus is hidden away. For the next 12 months there ought to be no contribution at all to the fund, and then we will see whether the scheme is capable of being amended.
The Noble Lord the Member for West Derbyshire made what in my opinion was a most estimable suggestion—that the whole question of the contributions should be carefully scrutinised. There is no reason whatever why, however good our object be, we should go out of our way to spend more than is necessary. I have been told that officials of the Ministry of Mines are going round the collieries, begging and praying them to do things which everybody admits in the district are utterly unnecessary and which in some cases the miners themselves are actually laughing at.
I have seen some of these objects which have been erected and which nobody uses. I suggest that officials of this fund are acting against the interests of the country and of the miners. We want this money to be wisely and well spent to help the miners instead of hindering them, and there should be a wholesale scrutiny of the way in which the fund is administered. This would be carrying out the strict economy, such as the Chancellor of the Exchequer advocated and which has been referred to previously this evening.

Mr. BRACKEN: I intervene in order to call attention to the curious contrast between the speech of the Secretary for Mines and the recent speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Noble Lord the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington) made a very reasonable speech, pointing out that this fund
already contained ample resources for the object for which it was created. Now, the Minister, not attempting to meet the Noble Lord's criticism, in a speech which was peculiarly rancid and bureaucratic, tells us that he is going to raise £5,000,000, and is going to find the objects afterwards for the spending of that sum. It really is extraordinary that the House should hear a speech proposing a levy of £5,000,000 on the mining industry, which is admittedly in a very dubious financial position, and should calmly consider giving a Second Reading to a Bill such as this, which authorises the Minister to acquire £5,000,000 from a harassed industry and find some object to spend it on later. I hope that some hon. Member will challenge this and that the House will not give the Bill a Second Reading until the Minister explains. It is monstrous—[Interruption.]
You did not give the Chancellor of the Exchequer the applause which you are giving me. The House of Commons, which is supposed to be the guardian of the public purse, is calmly considering the Second Reading of a Bill which authorises the Secretary for Mines to rush about the country finding charitable objects upon which to bestow this money. I hope the Conservative party, at any rate, will challenge this Bill—[Interruption.] The promotion of the Under-Secretary of State for War to the Treasury Bench has evidently not given him any principles of courtesy and good manners or he would refrain from interrupting. This is not a party question at all. We are asked to levy £5,000,000 for unknown objects. We ought not to give a Second Reading to the Bill until the Secretary for Mines tells us exactly what are the objects on which the money is to be expended.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: The Secretary for Mines, in this Debate, has followed the habit of too many Ministers in rising to make his second speech, before the ordinary Member has had a chance of expressing his views on the subject before the House. In his opening speech the hon. Gentleman told us, very clearly, that there was a balance of, approximately £2,000,000 in the fund, not counting the amount which is coming in, I understand, on 31st March. When tackled on this point, however, the hon.
Gentleman began to find reasons for whittling down that figure, until I almost began to suspect that there was a deficit in the fund, and that he would be compelled to come to the House and ask for more. [Interruption.] There is one point, however, which I would recommend to the attention of hon. Gentlemen who misrepresent the miners and the mining industry here and whose main knowledge of mining seems to be expressed in making a loud noise and not very much else. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about you?"] I am an almost silent Member. I would point out to these hon. Members that there is a surplus here and that there is a very hungry, very greedy, very rapacious gentleman going around looking for a surplus, namely, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I advise hon. Members to beware and I give that advice quite disinterestedly, because I am not interested in mining. I have followed the Chancellor's history however, and I would advise them, if they are interested in the Miners Fund, to watch the right hon. Gentleman very closely, lest he seize part of this surplus in his Budget, by that means putting an enormous indirect tax on the miners. He is not above that kind of thing and I think it right that one who comes from the premier mining county in the world, should warn those miners who are rather less wise, of these dangers. I suggest to them that in no circumstances should they at the present time take anything unnecessarily out of the miners' pockets, as would be done under this Bill. They should rather leave it there lest the Chancellor of the Exchequer should come down upon it and seize it. I give this warning to them particularly at this time, when we find the Secretary for Mines doing as he did to-night, and changing his mind so rapidly between his first and his second speech. Quite obviously he has had some pressure put upon him. I hope this matter will be watched carefully by

the various Members who are supposed to represent the mining industry in this House.

Hill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE [MONEY] (No. 2).

Resolution reported:
That it is expedient—

(a) to raise to ninety million pounds the limit on the amount of the advances to be made by the Treasury to the Unemployment Fund under Section five of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1921, as amended by subsequent enactments, which may be outstanding during the deficiency period; and
(b) to provide that the period of twelve months mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section fourteen of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927 (which was by subsequent enactments extended first to twenty-four months and then to thirty-six months) shall be further extended to forty-two months; and
(c) to authorise the payment into the Unemployment Fund out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(i) such amounts as may be determined by the Minister of Labour, with the concurrence of the Treasury, to be approximately equivalent to the aggregate amount of the sums which from time to time become payable by way of benefit under Sub-section (2) of the said Section fourteen by virtue of the further extension as aforesaid of the said period; and
(ii) an amount approximately equivalent to the expenses incurred by the Minister of Labour in administering the benefit which becomes payable as aforesaid."

Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 224; Noes. 79.

Division No. 153.]
AYES.
[11.25 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Barr, James
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Batey, Joseph
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Buchanan, G.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Benson, G.
Burgess, F. G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Burgin, Dr. E. L.


Alpass, J. H.
Bowen, J. W.
Calne, Derwent Hall


Ammon, Charles George
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Cameron, A. G.


Arnott, John
Broad, Francis Alfred
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)


Aske, Sir Robert
Bromfield, William
Charleton, H. C.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Brooke, W.
Chater, Daniel


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Brothers, M.
Church, Major A. G.


Barnes, Alfred John
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Clarke, J. S.


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lathan, G.
Romeril, H. G.


Compton, Joseph
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Daggar, George
Lawrence, Susan
Rowson, Guy


Dallas, George
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Dalton, Hugh
Lawson, John James
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Leach, W.
Sanders, W. S.


Dukes, C.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Sandham, E.


Duncan, Charles
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Sawyer, G. F.


Ede, James Chuter
Lees, J.
Scrymgeour, E.


Edmunds, J. E.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Scurr, John


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lindley, Fred W.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Egan, W. H.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sherwood, G. H.


Elmley, Viscount
Logan, David Gilbert
Shield, George William


Foot, Isaac
Longbottom, A. W.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Forgan, Dr. Robert
Longden, F.
Shillaker, J. F.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shinwell, E.


George, Major G, Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lunn, William
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Gibbins, Joseph
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Simmons, C. J.


Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Sitch, Charles H.


Gill, T. H.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Glassey, A. E.
McElwee, A.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Gossling, A. G.
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Gould, F.
McKinlay, A.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
McShane, John James
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sorensen, R.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Mlddlesbro' W.)
Wander, Geoffrey le M.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mansfield, W.
Stephen, Campbell


Grundy, Thomas W.
Marcus, M.
Strauss, G. R.


Hall. F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Marley, J.
Sullivan, J.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Marshall, Fred
Sutton, J. E.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Mathers, George
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Matters, L. W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Maxton, James
Tinker, John Joseph


Hardie, George D.
Messer, Fred
Toole, Joseph


Harris, Percy A.
Middleton, G.
Townend, A. E.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Montague, Frederick
Vaughan, David


Haycock, A. W.
Morley, Ralph
Viant, S. P.


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Walkden, A. G.


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Mort, D. L.
Walker, J.


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Wallace, H. W.


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Watkins, F.C.


Herriotts, J.
Muff, G.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R.,Wentworth)
Nathan Major H. L.
Wellock, Wilfred


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Hoffman, P. C.
Oldfield, J. R.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Hollins, A.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
West, F. R.


Hopkin, Daniel
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Horrabin, J. F.
Palin, John Henry
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Palmer, E. T.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Jenkins, Sir William
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Perry, S. F.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Johnston, Thomas
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Wilson, R J. (Jarrow)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Potts, John S.
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester. Loughb'gh)


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Price, M. P.
Wise, E. F.


Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)
Pybus, Percy John
Wood, Major McKenzle (Banff)


Kelly, W. T.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson



Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Rathbone, Eleanor
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Kinley, J.
Raynes, W. R.
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Paling.


Lang, Gordon
Richards, R.



NOES


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Colman, N. C. D.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Albery, Irving James
Culverwell, c. T. (Bristol, West)
Hartington, Marquess of


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cunliffe-Lister. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Atholl, Duchess of
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Beaumont, M. W.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-S.M.)
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Ferguson, Sir John
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Fielden, E. B.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Bracken, B.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Long, Major Hon. Eric


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Buchan, John
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Marjorlbanks, Edward


Campbell, E. T.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Greene, w. P. Crawford
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Savery, S. s.
Train, J.


Muirhead, A. J.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Peake, Capt. Osbert
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Klnc'dine, C.)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. sir A. Lambert


Ramsbotham, H.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Remer, John R.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Womersley, W. J.


Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.



Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Thomson, Sir F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Salmon, Major J.
Tinne, J. A.
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Sir George Penny.


Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Todd, Capt. A. J.



Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Miss Bondfield, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Lawson.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 2) BILL,

"to raise to ninety million pounds the limit on the amount of the advances by the Treasury to the Unemployment Fund which may be outstanding during the deficiency period; to amend Sub-section (2) of Section fourteen of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927, by further extending to forty-two months the period of twelve months therein mentioned; and to make provision for certain other matters in connection with the extension aforesaid," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second
time To-morrow, and to be printed.—[Bill 94.]

Orders of the Day — SENTENCE OF DEATH (EXPECTANT MOTHERS) BILL.

Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-five Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.